Redefining Gay, Straight, and Bisexual

[hummer7979]

Hi all

This has been on my mind for a while, and I thought this would be a good a place as any to let it out.

I've been thinking about bisexuality a lot. Even though I list myself as gay here, I will admit that I sometimes find myself in a situation where I am attracted to a girl in some sort of quasi-sexual quasi-emotional way. This led me to research bisexuality and what I've found is that many people try to define bisexuality in levels and degrees based on their emotional or sexual attraction. There's also talk about percentages of time when a bisexual is attracted to men or women.

And this all seemed wrong to me because in essence, I felt that there was too much focus on the person's sex. I don't focus on the person's sex when I am attracted to him/her. It just happens.

So, as an exercise in thought, I propose a redefinition of gay, straight, and bisexuality. (note, I claim this redefinition as my own insofar as I have yet to see this elsewhere, though will readily concede if I do)


Gay Straight and Bisexual. What do those mean? Most people will say that gay means attraction to same sex, straight is attraction to opposite sex, and bisexual means, to some degree, attracted to both sexes. But is that the most accurate way to define them? Given a random man, what is the likelihood that you are attracted to him? Certainly not 100%. There are other criteria you might look for, such as personality, age, wealth, etc. But what are you certain of, 100%, when you say "I'm gay"? It is that you are absolutely without a doubt not attracted to women. Vice versa for straight men.

So,
Gay means you are systematically not attracted to the opposite sex
Straight means you are systematically not attracted to the same sex


Ok, so that might be more accurate, but what other ramification does it have other than intellectual masturbation? Well, what happens when you extend these definitions to bisexuality? Bisexuals, according to those two definitions, are neither straight nor gay. Not even a little bit of each.

Bisexual means you do not systematically discriminate based on sex.


Why is this definition any different? For me, it validates the idea of bisexuality. No longer is it necessary to say "I'm bisexual but closer to gay" or "I'm bisexual but only straight in relationships" etc. This definition relieves the focus of sex in the context of attraction such that the object of affection is a holistic unit, a person who is attractive to you.


This also validates my personal belief that everyone is bisexual and that sexual orientation insofar as absolutism of gayness or straightness (i.e. absolute sex discrimination), is environmentally instilled, not genetic or predetermined, but that's a different discussion


Anyway, that's it. Let me know what you think.

 

[ineffablejk]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Gay means you are systematically not attracted to the opposite sex
Straight means you are systematically not attracted to the same sex

Semantics:

If I correctly understand your premise you’re using the word attracted as a substitute for the actual sex act. I would respectfully disagree.

I use the word Gay to mean that I have sex with guys exclusively. Not what I am attracted to. I am attracted to women, I have even gone to straight strip clubs to see attractive women undressed. I wouldn’t have sex with them.

A guy who militantly calls him self Gay, who says, I have known since I was 6 years old type of person, is attracted to woman on some level. It could be their “fag hag” or the cadre of woman that they are close friends with (sisters). It could be that he wants to be mothered or numerous other possibilities. Attraction is a big messy area. I don’t think the definition of Gay stops at attraction it has to do with the actual sex act.

I know straight guys who are devoted to each other because of a strong friendship or a bond they have. On some level that’s an attraction in this case formed by an exceptional friendship. That’s not Gay.

This definition relieves the focus of sex in the context of attraction such that the object of affection is a holistic unit, a person who is attractive to you.

I don't think you can talk about the definition of Gay without talking about sex for the reasons I outlined above. I believe that you are talking about sexual attraction. If that is the case you can't exclude the act of sex.

This also validates my personal belief that everyone is bisexual and that sexual orientation insofar as absolutism of gayness or straightness (i.e. absolute sex discrimination), is environmentally instilled, not genetic or predetermined, but that's a different discussion

In the past I would have strongly agreed with your statement there is no genetic proof of Gayness that is a fact but, I think it is way more complicated than that. I agree that it is based on a persons environmental experiences but, I also think Meta Genetics helps shape that environment.

As you said...
Let me know what you think.

 

[PhunkSpunk]

While not very subtile, Dr. Sex's 1-6 scale is a useful starting point, and highly insightful to the extent that it was the first acknowledgement of the pleiomorphic nature of human sexuality, just like the phenotypical variations he spent decades observing in gall wasps.

Freud and Kinsey are to the study sexuality what Plato and Aristotle are to Philosophy. While you can disagree with them, you have to acknowledge that they got the ball rolling.

I hate the current sexuality labels. For a while, shrinks, sex therapist ect, made the blanket pronouncement that everybody was intrinsically bisexual. I think they backed off, probably because it was bad for business. However, it was spot on to the extent that it acknowledged what I believe is the 'situational' nature of sexuality.

The most dramatic examples of 'situational' sexuality are 'prison fairies'. These are guys who go in straight and not only engage in homosexual acts on the inside, but assume feminine/submissive roles and behavior, too. And the truly interesting thing is that this phenomenon has little to do with 'the pecking order', but rather appears to be a passive-aggessive power stategem: some of these 'bitches' come to rule their cell blocks. Once they are released, they are again totally straight: it's as if prison never happened.

To me, this phenomenon says two things about the masculine varient of human nature: 1) most men need/crave 'feminine' company, and 2) men need to dominate other men, and will even become 'women' in order to do so. On the other side of the fence, Shakespeare was well aware of the extent to which women are capable of becoming 'men' in order to dominate them (Rosiland, Viola, Lady MacBeth, and to some degree Cleopatra and Beatrice)

I think the real semantic arguement isn't between gay, bi, and straight, but rather between gay and homosexual. If one were to draw a Venn diagram, 'gay' would be a smaller circle within the greater cohort of homosexuals, and it may be a significantly smaller circle. Nor do I discount the possibility that a small fragment of the gay circle may be outside the homosexual circle to account for the small cohort of 'gay-acting' straight men.

I have come to the opinion that in this, the 4th decade after the Stonewall Riots there yet remains a significant 'homosexual underground' composed of masculine-identifted homosexuals for whom the fabulous extra-sexual associations of 'gayness' are anathema. If anything, the Gay Liberation movement has only served to push these men deeper into their closets. In fact, I may go so far as to (controversially) suggest that all the Gay movement accomplished was to legitimize sodomy among the 'usual suspects': hair sylist, interior designers, retail sales help, etc -- which is to say not much at all. To be a homosexual in a traditionally male-identified professions (military, police, sports, etc) if anything holds an even greater stigma today than it did in the years prior to 'Gay Liberation'.

It appears I'm not alone in this opinion. Gore Vidal believes there were a higher incidence of men engaging in homosexual acts in the years prior to Gay liberation (yet another reason to call the fifties 'fabulous', i suppose). Mark Simpson concurs, adding that the sexual revolution, and the mainstreaming of 'heterosodomy' reduced the need for men to seek out other men for intimate companionship. Since the late 1960s, it has been increasing acceptable for a 'nice girl' to 'put out' and still maintain her 'reputation'.

In a 2002 piece about Dr. Sex written for 'The Standard' (and now available on his blog), Mark Simpson suggests that Kinsey was both attracted to and became more homosexual as he grew older as homosexuality was just sex, without any of the procreative gravitas associated with heterosexuality. I would add that the advent of the Pill and the easy availablity of barrier contraception (which had been illegal in many states up until the early 1960s) had the effect of leveling the homo-hetero playing field: straights were now just as free as homos to fuck for the fuck of it.

I would like to conclude by commenting on the popular notion that homosexuality is somehow 'genetically' determined: nowhere is the 'knowledge-wisdom' gap in science more apparent than in the common, blanket assumption that certain behaviors, including pathological ones like drug abuse, are 'genetic'. These 'beliefs' are little more than an attempt to disavow personal or societal responsibity -- a public hand washing -- and are in appalling bad faith.

Except in rare cases of Gender Nonconformity, I think the bulk of 'endstage' sexual orientation is determined by social milieu, both familial and greater cultural super-ego. I think there may be a higher incidence of male homosexuality in places like the United States, Australia and a few others, since they continue to have limited (i.e neanderthal or 'macho') ideas about 'correct' male sex roles. A sensitive kid who isn't so good in sports, likes music, etc, is ostracized as a 'fag' from early childhood. Kids like to please adults, and it should come as no surprise that this kid fulfills society's expectation of him by growing up to be gay. In another culture -- Europe, perhaps -- the sensitive artist would be the first of his cohort to get laid -- by a woman!

 

[hummer7979]

First off, thanks for the responses guys.

Semantics:

If I correctly understand your premise you’re using the word attracted as a substitute for the actual sex act. I would respectfully disagree.

I use the word Gay to mean that I have sex with guys exclusively. Not what I am attracted to. I am attracted to women, I have even gone to straight strip clubs to see attractive women undressed. I wouldn’t have sex with them.

A guy who militantly calls him self Gay, who says, I have known since I was 6 years old type of person, is attracted to woman on some level. It could be their “fag hag” or the cadre of woman that they are close friends with (sisters). It could be that he wants to be mothered or numerous other possibilities. Attraction is a big messy area. I don’t think the definition of Gay stops at attraction it has to do with the actual sex act.

I know straight guys who are devoted to each other because of a strong friendship or a bond they have. On some level that’s an attraction in this case formed by an exceptional friendship. That’s not Gay.

This definition relieves the focus of sex in the context of attraction such that the object of affection is a holistic unit, a person who is attractive to you.

I don't think you can talk about the definition of Gay without talking about sex for the reasons I outlined above. I believe that you are talking about sexual attraction. If that is the case you can't exclude the act of sex.

You're absolutely right. I was ambiguous with my wording. By attraction, I meant sexual attraction -- a desire to have sex with a person, not friendship or even a recognition of beauty, but full blown "I want to have sex with this person." I'll edit my post to reflect this.

I find the idea of metagenetics intriguing, though not easy to just accept. A genetic correlate to a spiritual personable human being seems so far reaching. It's like saying that who we are, our personality, is a result of some weird collection of subatomic particles floating around in a quantum mechanical circus. There is a certain holism to humanity and it's much more reasonable to me to say that we are the result of effects on ourselves as whole beings, that is, our interaction with the environment. The environment affects us as a whole person, not nucleotides. Well, maybe it's just a personal bias that I'll get over eventually I can at least concede that genetics may tip the balance for many things. I'm not a staunch social constructivist.


Edit: I guess I passed the time limit for editing my original post. Oh well

 

[hummer7979]

Wow - so much to respond to. Let me dive right in.

While not very subtile, Dr. Sex's 1-6 scale is a useful starting point, and highly insightful to the extent that it was the first acknowledgement of the pleiomorphic nature of human sexuality, just like the phenotypical variations he spent decades observing in gall wasps.

Freud and Kinsey are to the study sexuality what Plato and Aristotle are to Philosophy. While you can disagree with them, you have to acknowledge that they got the ball rolling.

Yes, I do acknowledge them. I take the whole "standing on the shoulder of giants" statement to heart and acknowledge that my current views would not exist without theirs, regardless of whether I agree.

I hate the current sexuality labels. For a while, shrinks, sex therapist ect, made the blanket pronouncement that everybody was intrinsically bisexual. I think they backed off, probably because it was bad for business. However, it was spot on to the extent that it acknowledged what I believe is the 'situational' nature of sexuality.

The most dramatic examples of 'situational' sexuality are 'prison fairies'. These are guys who go in straight and not only engage in homosexual acts on the inside, but assume feminine/submissive roles and behavior, too. And the truly interesting thing is that this phenomenon has little to do with 'the pecking order', but rather appears to be a passive-aggessive power stategem: some of these 'bitches' come to rule their cell blocks. Once they are released, they are again totally straight: it's as if prison never happened.

I completely agree with this. To be honest, I'm still sort of new to gay culture and, of the friends who know I'm gay, only one of them is actually gay too. I sometimes feel a bit naive making statements on my observations for fear of lack of experience, but you validate what I have felt all along regarding 'situational' sexuality.

About the prison behavior -- it brought to mind something else that I had thought about -- the role of physical sexual activity in defining sexual orientation. Certainly one can identify as "gay" and yet have never actually had sex with a person of the same sex (like me). Is it possible to have a world where no-one ever had sex, and yet still define something like sexual orientation? Say you are a male who, for whatever reason, will never have any sort of sexual activity; is it possible for you to love a woman the same as a man? Is it all hormones? Is it social mores? What if your available partners are all completely sexually unappealing. Would you still choose a man over a woman if you were gay?

To me, this phenomenon says two things about the masculine varient of human nature: 1) most men need/crave 'feminine' company, and 2) men need to dominate other men, and will even become 'women' in order to do so. On the other side of the fence, Shakespeare was well aware of the extent to which women are capable of becoming 'men' in order to dominate them (Rosiland, Viola, Lady MacBeth, and to some degree Cleopatra and Beatrice)

I think the real semantic arguement isn't between gay, bi, and straight, but rather between gay and homosexual. If one were to draw a Venn diagram, 'gay' would be a smaller circle within the greater cohort of homosexuals, and it may be a significantly smaller circle. Nor do I discount the possibility that a small fragment of the gay circle may be outside the homosexual circle to account for the small cohort of 'gay-acting' straight men.

I have come to the opinion that in this, the 4th decade after the Stonewall Riots there yet remains a significant 'homosexual underground' composed of masculine-identifted homosexuals for whom the fabulous extra-sexual associations of 'gayness' are anathema. If anything, the Gay Liberation movement has only served to push these men deeper into their closets. In fact, I may go so far as to (controversially) suggest that all the Gay movement accomplished was to legitimize sodomy among the 'usual suspects': hair sylist, interior designers, retail sales help, etc -- which is to say not much at all. To be a homosexual in a traditionally male-identified professions (military, police, sports, etc) if anything holds an even greater stigma today than it did in the years prior to 'Gay Liberation'.

I've always looked at being "gay" as having an emotional attachment to men and a separate physical/sexual attraction to men. I think for a lot of men, these two components clash. Sex for men is a struggle of power. This is why I've never been fond of the idea of sex with a man. I don't want to submit to another man and I don't want another man to submit to me. For me, being gay is about being a complete equal with another man and having a strong mutual love that does not require validation. However, I think there is a social mechanic to masculinity that says his self-esteem, his social status is inextricably bound to his lust for power. Therefore, it may be that my ideal relationship -- a relationship based on equality, not power -- is unstable in our society. I think there are men who have intimate feelings for other men understand this viscerally and therefore rely on friendships with men while they outlet their power lust on women. I think this is why there is a backlash to the gay liberation movement. All of a sudden, "gay" is being defined, perhaps at first for the purpose of humanizing what was considered a mental illness, but maybe then also marginalizing the people who did not fit those black and white categories. All of a sudden, a choice needed to be made. And so I completely agree with your assessment of the stigmatization of gay sex for masculine/non-stereotypically-gay men.

It appears I'm not alone in this opinion. Gore Vidal believes there were a higher incidence of men engaging in homosexual acts in the years prior to Gay liberation (yet another reason to call the fifties 'fabulous', i suppose). Mark Simpson concurs, adding that the sexual revolution, and the mainstreaming of 'heterosodomy' reduced the need for men to seek out other men for intimate companionship. Since the late 1960s, it has been increasing acceptable for a 'nice girl' to 'put out' and still maintain her 'reputation'.

In a 2002 piece about Dr. Sex written for 'The Standard' (and now available on his blog), Mark Simpson suggests that Kinsey was both attracted to and became more homosexual as he grew older as homosexuality was just sex, without any of the procreative gravitas associated with heterosexuality. I would add that the advent of the Pill and the easy availablity of barrier contraception (which had been illegal in many states up until the early 1960s) had the effect of leveling the homo-hetero playing field: straights were now just as free as homos to fuck for the fuck of it.

I would like to conclude by commenting on the popular notion that homosexuality is somehow 'genetically' determined: nowhere is the 'knowledge-wisdom' gap in science more apparent than in the common, blanket assumption that certain behaviors, including pathological ones like drug abuse, are 'genetic'. These 'beliefs' are little more than an attempt to disavow personal or societal responsibity -- a public hand washing -- and are in appalling bad faith.

Except in rare cases of Gender Nonconformity, I think the bulk of 'endstage' sexual orientation is determined by social milieu, both familial and greater cultural super-ego. I think there may be a higher incidence of male homosexuality in places like the United States, Australia and a few others, since they continue to have limited (i.e neanderthal or 'macho') ideas about 'correct' male sex roles. A sensitive kid who isn't so good in sports, likes music, etc, is ostracized as a 'fag' from early childhood. Kids like to please adults, and it should come as no surprise that this kid fulfills society's expectation of him by growing up to be gay. In another culture -- Europe, perhaps -- the sensitive artist would be the first of his cohort to get laid -- by a woman!

I made a post a long time ago flirting with the idea that gender roles (essentially a continuum of dominance to submission) and gender attraction were established before the association of those gender roles to specific sexes, and that the establishment of those gender roles to sexes causes us to be attracted to one sex and systematically not attracted to the other sex, solidifying what we then call "sexual orientation." It seemed to me reasonable that gender-role attraction would be established before sexual orientation because we are not born understanding biological sex, and in fact we learn the difference between a man and a women (biologically) rather late in our development. In other words, I think before we learn about penises and vaginas, a "straight" boy could very well find himself attracted to a feminine boy dressed in girl's clothing, and at that stage, would he know the difference?

After haphazardly defending that idea, I came to the conclusion that genetics is not deterministic, but that it is unreasonable to conclude that it has absolutely no effect.


And more than a semantic exercise, I think that something can be gained in looking at sexual orientation as a systematic restriction rather than a personal trait. It's a sort of self-perpetuating mental block. For example, some people say that they are not attracted to black people, perhaps after an encounter with a black person. Having that statement in your mind automatically causes you to see black people with a bias, regardless of how attractive they may be. It's a mental shortcut that is ultimately harmful because it shortchanges one's objective judgment. And I think the same can be said about declaring oneself as "only attracted to men."


Anyway, before I spiral into a million topics, thanks again for responding. Your post was incredibly insightful.

 

[hubbellgardner]

This is perhaps the most significantly intelligent thread I've read on JUB in a long while. I'm gay but genuinely fascinated by bisexuality and to see it discussed here in so unsophomoric a fashion is a rare treat. Thanks.

 

[AngelFromAbove]

The norm is 'heterosexuality', and perhaps 80% of men and women go through life with no stirrings of any sexual attraction to their own sex, apart perhaps from larking around in their early teens. As one well-known person put it, homosexuality would be as appealing as 'eating cardboard'. The popular term is 'straight', which is unfortunate because the opposite of course is 'bent', a derogatory term for homosexuals, at least in the UK.

How do you know this for certain? No offense, but everything that I have studied concerning sexuality states that bisexuality is the norm, not heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is simply the most visible.

Personally, bisexuality being the norm makes more sense than an extreme such as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Even if I had not studied this, all I have to do is look at how many posts at different websites with men claiming to be straight or married men looking for sex with men. None of these men are going to claim bisexuality, but heterosexuality.

When it comes to anything in life, even human nature, anything that is 100% or an extreme is rare.

 

[Treborf]

I think the accepted definitions are: straight means you're only attracted to the opposite sex, gay means you're only attracted to the same sex and bisexual means you're attracted to both sexes. Your definition doesn't differentiate between asexuality and bisexuality.

This also validates my personal belief that everyone is bisexual and that sexual orientation insofar as absolutism of gayness or straightness (i.e. absolute sex discrimination), is environmentally instilled, not genetic or predetermined, but that's a different discussion

I hear people throwing this idea around a lot, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Social conditioning is strong, but strong enough to fool 95 % of the population that they're straight? And what of gay people? How could we be conditioned to be gay even when all our friends and family and just about everyone we know had straightness instilled into them? I just don't get it.

 

[kayman23]

Sexually is something that is of a mystery. However, from my own personal knowledge in Psychology myself, as it is my minor, that bisexual is a lot more frequent that the general public wants to acknowledge.

However, I think that a huge chunk of society does like social norms and environmental influences orchestrate their love & sex life more than they should. Particularly when it comes to defining sexuality, as there are numerous men that claim they are "straight" and/or "married", but soliciting sex with other men.

 

[headguy]

gay = smoking
straight = non smoking
bi = first available

 

[hummer7979]

If I can add my own viewpoint here.

I don't agree that 'sexuality' is the desire to have sex with a person of a particular sex. It is the underlying sexual orientation that one feels.

The norm is 'heterosexuality', and perhaps 80% of men and women go through life with no stirrings of any sexual attraction to their own sex, apart perhaps from larking around in their early teens. As one well-known person put it, homosexuality would be as appealing as 'eating cardboard'. The popular term is 'straight', which is unfortunate because the opposite of course is 'bent', a derogatory term for homosexuals, at least in the UK.

The opposite is 'homosexuality', which is sexual attraction to one's own sex. The word, however, has dropped out of favour, perhaps because of its associations with the old days of repression. Moreover, it caused a lot of confusion, because people assumed it derived from the Latin 'homo' for man, so it only referred to homosexual men. In fact it derives from the Greek 'homo' meaning 'same'. So lesbian women are also 'homosexual'.

Unfortunately, 'gay', the word chosen to replace 'homosexual', seems to have inherited the same confusion, as we refer to 'gay men and lesbians', as if 'gay' only refers to male homosexuals.

Now just because somebody is 'straight' or 'gay', doesn't mean that they are attracted to every member of the opposite, or same, sex. Perhaps only 10%, or less, of the members of the target sex are attractive to them. Perhaps they only have sexual feelings for one member of the target sex, their chosen life partner.

'Bisexuality' obviously means attraction to members of both sexes. But, again, it doesn't mean that they are attracted to all members of both sexes, it could be a minority in each case. And the sexual feelings for each sex, might not be equal.

In my own case, and this is controversial, I have to admit that there is a racial element. I am white/caucasian but totally anti-racist. I am attracted to women of all races. But I am generally not attracted to men of North European origin. I am however strongly attracted to black, Latino, and definitely most of all, East/Southeast Asian men. Is this because men of North European race are the "same as me", and there has to be an element of difference for the sexual attraction to arise?

I respect your views and will concede to at least admitting that social experimentation to confirm or deny our ideas would undoubtedly be unethical. But I would argue that sexual and emotional desire are two different things. Certainly the desired other-person in the context of a serious monogamous relationship would exhibit both those qualities but I think most people will admit to saying that there are people whom they find "fuckable" but with no personality, or "great boyfriend material" but not sexually attractive. I think some people deny any sort of animal-like quality to sex, but I would argue that it is still that quality but wrapped up in human social mechanics, like respecting women, respecting the law, respecting or empathizing the feelings, pleasures, pains of the other person. However, these social mechanics don't eliminate the balance of power within sexual intercourse. It merely reshapes it.

Hm I'm not sure where I was going with that in regard to your post, but there are certainly lots and lots of cultural elements that form what ultimately is the gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. What I'm more interested is everything before that -- the development of sexuality as it first comes into contact with social norms. I think that is the key to understanding what being homosexual and bisexual is really all about.

I'm glad you felt safe enough to admit your "controversial" view. I would say that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "immoral" with your view. Physical attraction is real. My only response is that whole attraction is made up of many parts, not just physical appearance, and that it is absolutely possible that a person of a race that you think you're not attracted to may be the love of your life. Therefore, if you make a whole-hearted attempt to get to know a person as an individual, rather than part of a group, you may find that a person who "looks the same" as the rest may turn out to have the difference that you sexually desire.

 

[hummer7979]

This is perhaps the most significantly intelligent thread I've read on JUB in a long while. I'm gay but genuinely fascinated by bisexuality and to see it discussed here in so unsophomoric a fashion is a rare treat. Thanks.

Thanks! I know most people come here for mindless gay gossip, small-talk and porn (me included ) but the occasional serious discussion doesn't hurt. And I love the fact that this community has a no-flame zone for people to talk about more serious stuff.

 

[hummer7979]

How do you know this for certain? No offense, but everything that I have studied concerning sexuality states that bisexuality is the norm, not heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is simply the most visible.

Personally, bisexuality being the norm makes more sense than an extreme such as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Even if I had not studied this, all I have to do is look at how many posts at different websites with men claiming to be straight or married men looking for sex with men. None of these men are going to claim bisexuality, but heterosexuality.

When it comes to anything in life, even human nature, anything that is 100% or an extreme is rare.

I agree with you. I think that there may be a confusion between sexual desire (wanting to have sex with a person) and the social manifestations of those desires (being in a relationship, being married). Sexual desires are rather complex, while the manifestations tend to be very black and white - you're either in a gay or straight relationship.

What we need to do is step back from the social manifestations because they do not accurately define true sexual desires. Consider people like Ted Haggard, the pastor who had extramarital relations with a male prostitute despite having a wife and five kids. Now, maybe his case is rather extreme because he went so far as to get a prostitute, but consider how many men may be in a similar situation where they have a wife and kids but also find that they have sexual desires toward men? To any outsider, these men are straight. But if we look at their true sexual desires behind the veil of official relationships, it's obviously a lot more complex.

It is for this reason that the idea that we are all gay or straight seems absurd. Surely our relationships may fit into either one or the other's category, but our true sexual desires are deeper than this. And I think that understanding this is important because it helps reveal why we do the things we do and accept who and what we are as individual people.

 

[hummer7979]

I think the accepted definitions are: straight means you're only attracted to the opposite sex, gay means you're only attracted to the same sex and bisexual means you're attracted to both sexes. Your definition doesn't differentiate between asexuality and bisexuality.

I don't know much about asexuality, to be honest. I can't really put myself in the mindset of an asexual person other than perhaps by suppressing existing sexual desires for whatever reason. But then, there would still be an underlying sexual desire that is supressed. If you are asexual or know someone who is, please explain it to me.

I hear people throwing this idea around a lot, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Social conditioning is strong, but strong enough to fool 95 % of the population that they're straight? And what of gay people? How could we be conditioned to be gay even when all our friends and family and just about everyone we know had straightness instilled into them? I just don't get it.

I won't pretend to say I know for sure. It's just a school of thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that people are conditioned to think they are straight, and that 95% of people across the spectrum will either find an opposite sex person that they are happy with, or will simply suppress all homosexual desires as long as they can.

My view is that you are not conditioned to like men, but you are conditioned to never consider a women as a possible mate. By defining yourself as a "gay" man you are saying that you don't like women. The conditioning is in the systematic refusal of sexual attraction, not the positive attraction. This is why I defined gay and straight as I did. This is why I believe that everyone starts out bisexual. Of course, there are a lot of social elements that shape this, and that is where the 95% straight relationships comes into play. At least, that's what I think.

 

[luismex911]

omg!!! such an interesting thread!!!! congrtas to those who have been writing on it!!!!

 

[hummer7979]

Sexually is something that is of a mystery. However, from my own personal knowledge in Psychology myself, as it is my minor, that bisexual is a lot more frequent that the general public wants to acknowledge.

However, I think that a huge chunk of society does like social norms and environmental influences orchestrate their love & sex life more than they should. Particularly when it comes to defining sexuality, as there are numerous men that claim they are "straight" and/or "married", but soliciting sex with other men.

Social norms are a life's shortcuts. I think every self-proclaimed homosexual can understand that .

I think that people who define sexual orientation as "the people you have relationships with" are the ones who are most confused by bisexuality. Obviously, a relationship is either "gay" or "straight" so where does that lead the bisexual? He/she must refuse all relationships and have sex all the time because that's the only way to satisfy positive sexual desire with both sexes! It's the only way to make sense of it with the current definition of bisexuality. That's why it's so relevant to see sexual orientation as a limitation on the attraction toward a specific whole person.

 

[hummer7979]

gay = smoking
straight = non smoking
bi = first available

Slight modification:

gay = smoking
straight = non smoking
bi = seat with the best view

 

[Treborf]

I don't know much about asexuality, to be honest. I can't really put myself in the mindset of an asexual person other than perhaps by suppressing existing sexual desires for whatever reason. But then, there would still be an underlying sexual desire that is supressed. If you are asexual or know someone who is, please explain it to me.

I dont know much about asexuality either, but they don't systematically discriminate based on sex either. I was just making a case for the standard definitions of gay, straight, and bi.

I won't pretend to say I know for sure. It's just a school of thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that people are conditioned to think they are straight, and that 95% of people across the spectrum will either find an opposite sex person that they are happy with, or will simply suppress all homosexual desires as long as they can.

It just seems like a needlessly complicated view of sexuality and takes a lot of reaching to make it work...remember occam's razor

My view is that you are not conditioned to like men, but you are conditioned to never consider a women as a possible mate.

Or do we never consider a woman as a possible mate because we're by (the standard) definition only attracted to men?

By defining yourself as a "gay" man you are saying that you don't like women.

Well, not quite. When I say I'm gay, it means that I don't like women and I'm into guys. Again, an asexual guy isn't into women either.

No offense but this whole post is coming off as a kinda, um, bisexual PR camaign. You seem to be redefining words and pushing complicated hypotheses and championing bisexuality as the one true orientation, just so you can put bisexuality in a better light. I'm all for bisexual pride and stuff, but c'mon. Bisexuality doesn't need to be validated.

 

[yuty]

= By defining yourself as a "gay" man you are saying that you don't like women.

What the fuck?



This thread fails....

Yes, yes, we've all heard this before: Everyone's bisexual. We can choose our sexual desires. Our sexual orientation is a choice.

Bull....

 

[hummer7979]

I dont know much about asexuality either, but they don't systematically discriminate based on sex either. I was just making a case for the standard definitions of gay, straight, and bi.

It just seems like a needlessly complicated view of sexuality and takes a lot of reaching to make it work...remember occam's razor

Or do we never consider a woman as a possible mate because we're by (the standard) definition only attracted to men?

Well, not quite. When I say I'm gay, it means that I don't like women and I'm into guys. Again, an asexual guy isn't into women either.

No offense but this whole post is coming off as a kinda, um, bisexual PR camaign. You seem to be redefining words and pushing complicated hypotheses and championing bisexuality as the one true orientation, just so you can put bisexuality in a better light. I'm all for bisexual pride and stuff, but c'mon. Bisexuality doesn't need to be validated.

Again, I can't really comment on asexuality without know much about it. You mentioned occam's razor. I think it would be simpler to say that we start off capable of being attracted to both sexes and throughout our development, our sexual desires, the ones that are allowed and the ones that are denied, are defined. I think that is more simple than a "100% gay gene," "100% straight gene," "60%, 40% gene," etc. The simplest explanation isn't necessarily the one that everyone already knows.

I'm not really championing bisexuality so much as trying to understand it. It doesn't make sense to me that people are just attracted to both sexes equally or 60% into guys and 40% into girls, or like guys for sex and girls for relationships. If you can simply accept those statements by saying "that's just how they are, it has nothing to do with me," then fine. I don't mean to waste your time. But to me, these phrases make me wonder how we can possibly come to terms with bisexuality and relationships if we define bisexuality in such a way.

My definition of gay straight and bi do not directly conflict with the standard ones. They are just more precise. Being a gay male is more accurately not being attracted sexually to women more than it is being attracted to men because gay men are not attracted to all men. That was really my original point. I know it sounds like semantics, but I think there's still value in it.