Political Crossfire Forums

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2277 Location: Cambridge, MA

More and more, I believe that labels for sexual orientation are stupid. Why does everyone had to be gay or straight?

When someone comes up to me and asks me if I like men, I am supposed to say yes, because I am not a lesbian. But I don't like all men, and I don't like all women for that matter. Regardless, I am expected to say yes, thus stamping the word "straight" on my forehead.

When someone says that they are "gay" or "straight", all they are really doing is making a choice. They are not telling you what their orientation is, they are telling you that they have simply made a choice to confine themselves to a certain behavior, and they would like to be identified with the group that also confines themselves to that behavior.

We are quick to label others also. If a "straight" guy is found out to have kissed another guy, people will go behind his back and say that he must have been lying, because he is really gay. It is a matter of time before he "comes out". That guy might start to question his own "orientation". After all, he was attracted to a guy. He can't be straight, right? Well, maybe he is bisexual. He is half "straight", half "gay". Not like everyone else. Most people are either one or the other, right? He is the weird one, right?

Wrong. He simply dared not to play along with his label. When he was attracted to that guy, the label he had previously smacked on his forehead forgot to remind him for a moment that he was "straight", and he broke the rules.

I'm not saying that labels are neccessarily bad. A lot of people for whatever reason want a certain lifestyle, and want to advertise it to everyone else. But I think that people get too caught up in labels, and forget that we make them up (and the stereotypes that accompany them)ourselves.

It is a lot like race, IMO. People must identify as either black or white, but the obvious truth to anyone who has eyes is that nobody is really black or white; we are all shades of brown.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Because we live in a society which is very curious about one another. We need to know whether or not that one person we see everyday is straight or a homosexual. Our curiosity towards strangers personal values is amazing.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000 Location: Finding Æreus

Ek0nomik wrote: Because we live in a society which is very curious about one another. We need to know whether or not that one person we see everyday is straight or a homosexual. Our curiosity towards strangers personal values is amazing.
Yeah, but I think this black and white labeling is harmful to society. No one is perfectly straight or gay; everyone lies on a spectrum somewhere in between. Even guys who are mostly straight are afraid to acknowledge the maybe 5%-10% of them that isn't and so we see the fear of not being perfectly straight directed at others who possess feared characteristics.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

aLienaTeD wrote: Yeah, but I think this black and white labeling is harmful to society. No one is perfectly straight or gay; everyone lies on a spectrum somewhere in between. Even guys who are mostly straight are afraid to acknowledge the maybe 5%-10% of them that isn't and so we see the fear of not being perfectly straight directed at others who possess feared characteristics.

Definetly. I am not saying labeling is something that should exist. I completely agree that people lie somewhere in between, and I'm one of them.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5493 Location: Fulton, Ks

What really bugs me is the people who seem to think a female can't say another female is attractive or she's a lesbian, and a guy can't say another guys attractive or he's gay. WTF? you honestly can't tell that a woman would like looking at that man?

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

The Underground wrote: What really bugs me is the people who seem to think a female can't say another female is attractive or she's a lesbian, and a guy can't say another guys attractive or he's gay. WTF? you honestly can't tell that a woman would like looking at that man?

If I find a man attractive I rarely say anything. If I find a female attractive I rarely say anything.

I completely agree with what you're saying though. If I were to say, "That's a pretty good looking man" (which is what I say to myself, in my head, (and vice-versa for a female)) I would get a few turns towards me of people thinking that I'm a homosexual. I don't understand it either Underground.

George W Bush · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject:

totally know what you mean.
i'm sick of the need to peg people into a category for the sake of judging them.
I fault this on societies obsession with culture. The need to communize, or gather, contributes to this disgraceful tendency.

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9284 Location: Palm Beach

Gryff1nd0r, bravo! :clap:

I have been saying this all along, sexual orientation labels are ridiculous, we can prefer one gender or the other but we should never restrict ourselves. When it comes to love, who knows what could happen? Our genitals don't determine love.

I refer to the Natalie Portman quote in my signature.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000 Location: Finding Æreus

Melchior wrote: Gryff1nd0r, bravo! :clap:

I have been saying this all along, sexual orientation labels are ridiculous, we can prefer one gender or the other but we should never restrict ourselves. When it comes to love, who knows what could happen? Our genitals don't determine love.

I refer to the Natalie Portman quote in my signature.
Right. It is in our mind who or what we love and the impulses, whatever they may be, that come along with it. Some of those impulses do not fit the diehard straight definition and many people castigate themselves and others because of that.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

I think it probably has a lot to do with how our brains work. The brain tends to catorgize things based upon what we decide something is: good, bad, black, white, red, man, woman, smart, stupid, etc. Sorta' like a large file cabinet. Then when we need to access something, it goes to the cabinet & knows where to look to pull the info back out.
I also base everything on the assumption of a 'white guy'. Meaning that since I am a white guy I make the assumption that what I am speaking about or hearing involves one white guy unless other wise noted. So if I tell a story about what I saw 'a guy' say on TV (for example) I am telling a story about a white guy. It would be something like this: "I saw a guy on TV the other day say..." There is an understanding there that the story is about a white guy (only because I am a white guy). I didn't specifically mention a 'white guy' - it was implied.
But if I saw a black woman say something on TV, it would start out like: "I saw a black woman on TV the other day say...". I would make the distinction right away but not in a negative way. So for me labels help out some
At least that's the way it works for me.

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

I think there's something Gryff1nd0r isn't telling us about her latant homosexuality.

On another note, I'd like to express that pansexuality is the best ;)

Tracker · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject:

Ek0nomik wrote: Because we live in a society which is very curious about one another. We need to know whether or not that one person we see everyday is straight or a homosexual. Our curiosity towards strangers personal values is amazing.

Excellent openning post, (original poster). I'd like to respond to the above observation:

Recently, I was in a discussion with a guy about gay-sex and straight-sex. I said, "I just like f***ing' 'em." I was referring to the female gender. I was being rather facetious. But this was someone that does not know me, whom i'd just met in a brief 10-minute conversation in a gay-bar.

Why was I in a gay-bar, then?

Because only perverts need to analyze everybody's crotch and make JUDGMENTS based on perceptions of crotch-usage.

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between 'love' and 'lust.' We are TRAINED to regard ALL 'sexual-attractions' as 'romance' and 'love.'

You 'make-love' to the person you are BOTH in-love with, who is in-love with you also, and are both sexually-attracted towards.

You 'f**k' otherwise. And while in-love (OnLove), there are NO OTHER ATTRACTIONS toward other people. This is IMPORTANT. It 'blurs' the lines between sexual-attraction and being in-love with someone, and causes a great deal of confusion in relationships, which is why 79% experience 'infidelity' issues.

It is TRAINED in society, with labels, as the original poster just described.

So, when I said to a stranger in a gay-bar, "I just like f***ing 'em," I was referring to the looser-definition of this term, because some people love each other, are in-love with each other, but have sex with others because the 'f***ing' is good, making a clear distinction between their relationship of love, and their RECREATION of sex.

Too few, do -- being trained to have a big 'break-up' in the event of sexual-attractions outside of their loving relationship. I'm really BIG on monogomy -- so don't think I'm suggesting 'orgy' behavior. I'm most certainly not.

I've been sexually-attracted to ... MAYBE ... a couple-dozen people of the thousands I've met and the thousands more I've seen in mags/tv/videos/movies.

Of those I've been sexually-attracted to, an even dozen involved romantic feelings (for whatever reason). Immaturity? Training that sex-attraction means 'out-of-love' with the person you have a relationship with, even though that is not the case?

Many loving relationships have NO SEX AT ALL.

If no lieing or cheating is involved, should they break-up if one wants to f**k somebody? Is that YEARNING confused with 'love' because of TRAINING?

And that's the ROOT of divorce, right there, and broken families, and ruined lives, and much heartbreak, regardless of gender.

Always practice safe-sex, and never lie about it. Discuss your attractions with your partner. Don't confuse attractions with love. I learned the hard way about that last one -- safe-sex is a GIVEN, depending on activity -- personally, I've had very few sex-partners.

That said, the 'bi' label is often used to perversley analyze a person's crotch, with the stereotypical label: "you f**k anything -- you're gross!" in some bizarre twist on the term 'morality-ticket' to make one's self look 'better' by hating another. Some people do f**k anything ... MOST DO NOT. And most people have sex only with people they are experiencing mutual romantic feelings toward, gender being irrelevent. So, if I'm in-love with a woman and the relationship doesn't work out -- and the next person I happen to become in-love with is a different gender -- and that relationship doesn't work out -- and the next time I fall in-love, it's with another woman ... each relationship being entirely monogomous and possibly non-sexual anyway -- what kind of LABEL do you have?

"Confused!"

bulls**t! "MostComfortableWithOne'sOwnSexuality" is the appropriate non-label.

I normally only discuss crotch-usage with the person who is attracted to using it. Otherwise, it's perverse examination and nobody's business. I share a 'glimpse' here because the discussion is fascinating and affects all of us.

----------
OnEdit: "loser-definition" should have been "looser-definition" :lol:

=================

Promote GirlOnGirlAction nonstop ... "it's not gay!" -- and there is NO CONCERN about future 'straight' monogomous relationships.

So, 'girl-on-girl' is NORMAL.

But if guys admit they had such activity ONCE, they are 'damaged-goods.' Obviously, sex is sex -- love is something else.

DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE KILLING US, dividing instead of uniting.

Tracker · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject:

Too many are troubled with these issues. I want to 'weigh-in' on it in better detail:
( -- and leave it at that, because this will be a rather lengthy commentary to discuss sexualty issues)

We all want a full committment. This is our training. When it feels 'violated,' either real or imagined, we start yearning for something ELSE.

And sometimes we 'transfer' all of our love WITH the yearning to someone else, after ending the previous relationship. "Re-bound" is where that term comes from, because it's not mutual.

You know it's NOT 're-bound' if previous romantic involvements did not work out, and you've moved on, and then one day you find yourself falling in-love with someone else -- 'sexual-attraction' aside. And if not returned, that 'falling in love' -- clearly distinguished from sexual-attraction -- then we fall out-of-love and move on -- perhaps to fall in-love again later -- hopefully it's returned -- if not, we fall out-of-love and move on.

As far as I know, none of the people I've EVER been either attracted to or in love with, feel either attracted or in-love with me, today. I'm no longer 'in-love' with any of them. I'm not in-love with anybody at all. All of those I've loved in the past, however, I still love, and would help, assist, or support (serve and protect) if EVER requested, with no strings attached. Most people would not. I am not 'most people.' I'm not sexually-attracted to anybody right now, either. Nor do I go around 'advertising' or 'shopping' and/or trying to 'impress' anybody AT ALL.

I'm not the kind of person that wants sex without monogomy or some type of planned 'future' without committment. Failed relationships teach us how to have better relationships in future.

What about sex for fun? Without love? Fascinating, ins't it? Yup. Sure IS.

If a relationship isn't working out and we break-up -- or we are not in-love with anyone at all -- and we meet someone for 'adult play', knowing it's about mutual-pleasure and not about relationships or marriage/committment AT ALL, what do you call that?

I've had sexual activity with few -- so I'm probably not the best person to give an answer -- and that's perhaps why I'm the MOST QUALIFIED to answer -- because I understand that 'answers' are for SOME, not all.

Because I have :
1) re-bounded
2) loved, in-love fully, with all my heart, and it wasn't returned (un-requieted)
3) confused sexual-attraction with love (and vice vesa)
4) had an adult 'sex-play' friend (still monogomous but no committments and no 'future planning' or 'romance' involved AT ALL)
5) Been in-love, that was fully mutual, without sex
6) Been in-love, that was fully mutal, with sex
7) Fallen in-love with someone else while being in-love with another
8) Discontinued in-love relationship with no sex, to pursue another thinking it was wrong to be sexually-attracted and falling in-love with someone outside of my relationship (because I do NOT 'do' affairs, lie, cheat, etc., and would NEVER subject myself nor another to such a scenario or even the POSSIBILITY).
9) Been hatefully jealous while involved in (or pursuing) a relationship, concocting problems.

So, the question remains: If you are in-love, in or out of a relationship, and not sufficiently 'encouraged,' so fall out-of-love ... how much time needs pass before faling in-love with someone else without fear of it being some 'other' psychological manifestation?

Case-by-case, and every individual and every case is UNIQUE, the TREASURE of being ALIVE. It would be SIMPLE if we were all cloned-ROBOTS, but thankfully, we are NONE OF THAT.

I want someone that loves me for me -- MIND -- not merely the 'package' that it's wrapped in (and to some people, the 'package' is quite beautiful; to others ugly; that's the way it works). And to that person, I say to you, "never 'write-off' people -- denying possible opportunity out of concocted 'what-ifs' and ASSumptions is called PARANOIA; and how the two of us would relate together in future is UNKNOWN, not 'written in stone.' I DO NOT BREAK COMMITTMENTS. Pursue personal-friendship FIRST. Never delay. Try again, perhaps today."

So, how can I 'rationalize' ending a loving relationship in the past? Perhaps it was 'training' for a DIFFERENT 'big event?' Perhaps with one of the people I've known before -- or maybe someone new? Truth is, I can't. A multitude of factors were involved, and that's where the term "it didn't work out" comes from. All of the issues in relationships I've encountered in the past were MINE. I've either resolved them entirely, OR, know how to work through them -- NOW. And I've NEVER been a 'cheater. Jealous? Ashamedly, yes. But not a 'control-freak' or 'friend-chooser.''"

The difference is, I"M OPEN AND HONEST and MOST ARE NOT. "Subtle' is HORRID, a setup for FAILURE. I do not like 'subtle' AT ALL in terms of personal relationships, loving or otherwise.

I am alive not because I'm attempting to impress another, my existence on a 'thread' attached to their 'devotion,' but because I WANT TO BE -- to SERVE AND PROTECT -- to NURTURE others in whatever way is possible.' And that is the type of person I would CONSIDER rising to OnLove WITH now or in future.

And that is why past sexual-behavior has NOTHING TO DO with FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS -- for all people. Relationships are NOT ABOUT THE PAST -- it's about the FUTURE and a tomorrow that is brighter, sunnier, happier, healthier, and BETTER.

Kind Regards

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9284 Location: Palm Beach

Helena` wrote: On another note, I'd like to express that pansexuality is the best ;)

You could fall in love with someone without knowing their gender (say such a person is very androgynous). Then discovering their gender later would have little to no affect about how you feel about them?

I would consider that a new level of enlightenment. :)

Even though I don't believe gender restricts my capability to fall in love or be attracted to someone, it's still important to me. I need some closure in that category.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000 Location: Finding Æreus

Melchior wrote: You could fall in love with someone without knowing their gender (say such a person is very androgynous). Then discovering their gender later would have little to no affect about how you feel about them?
Or conversely, you could see them first, and other issues besides the carnal attraction would have little impact.

Quote: I would consider that a new level of enlightenment. :)
Yes, I would agree. Being able to love someone before you see them and to continue to without regard to other factors than the connection that you made before meeting them is true enlightenment.

Quote: Even though I don't believe gender restricts my capability to fall in love or be attracted to someone, it's still important to me. I need some closure in that category.
Closure is learning to ignore the 'you fit in this box' tendency of society and freely thinking about yourself as the individual that you are. It may be the case that the restriction to one relationship, regardless of gender, is unsatisfactory. That's the main reason that I would support bisexual polygamy even if I didn't support the one man, many wives form of polygamy.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

I agree about the labels. People need to realize we are all human beings and that's all that really matters. I judge a person based on who they are- not their sexuality or race or religion.