I Don't Believe In...

[crashhelmet]

***First Edit***
I just realized this probably should've been in Grab Bag or some other subforum. Can we move it?
***End of Edit***
*MOD NOTE - This was moved for you, but next time, please report or PM your request to a mod so we can see it. Posting in the thread is rather useless in case we don't read that particular thread.

I didn't want to derail the This has been brewing for a while...... thread, so I started this.

I realize I will probably offend some of you, if not a lot of you, but I'm hoping for an intelligent discussion out of this.

With that said...

I don't believe in homosexuality. I don't believe in heterosexuality. I simply believe in sexuality.

We live in a world where we have to label everything to differentiate ourselves between the others. This has spread to our own sexuality. Hetero, homo, bi, pan, poly, etc. They're all just labels to make us different from some groups and still keep acceptance with others.

In my opinion, it all comes down to sexual attraction. Some people are sexually attracted to the opposite gender. Some to to the same gender. Some to both. Some people are attracted to people of the same gender that look like the opposite gender. Some people are attracted to the opposite gender that look like the same gender. Then you get into the attractions to various looks, races, ages, builds, and other "fetishes."

There are many cross dressers and transgendered women out there you could show a picture of to a "straight" male and he'd admit his attraction and desires without knowing their genetic gender. This doesn't make him homosexual. He's just sexual. There are even those that do sleep with them, but wouldn't consider sleeping with a "regular" guy. They see them as women, not as the men that they genetically are. Again, it's sexual attraction.

As I said, we label everything to separate us. The "I'm better than you because I'm this and you're that" mentality. How much would we be better off as a world if we accepted that we're just sexual people instead of adding in the differentiating prefixes?

(NOTE: I'm at work trying to write this while doing my normal responsibilities. I may edit a few times for clarity)

[TheHuckster]

There are many cross dressers and transgendered women out there you could show a picture of to a "straight" male and he'd admit his attraction and desires without knowing their genetic gender.

Two things about this:

1.) For a cross dresser: The straight male is subconsciously imagining himself with this "woman" as a woman, though. As the brain goes through those motions, he is thinking of a vagina in those pants, and as soon as you mention that there's a penis, the bubble bursts and the male is no longer interested. Why? Because he isn't attracted to penises.

2.) For a transgendered woman: Straight men can be honestly attracted to transgendered women because their gender has been medically changed. She has a vagina.

Sexual orientation isn't about looks. On a deep, subconscious, and biological level it's about what organ is in the pants. As a straight male I know my own orientation. It's not a label for me; it's an identity. I don't need someone to label me as such, I can label myself. I know that I have never, even vaguely, been attracted to another male. I might look at one and say, "Girls must swoon over him." but that's a statement based on second-hand experience rather than what my penis is telling me. I label myself not to make myself seem superior to others, but to describe myself: I am attracted to women, i.e. I am straight. It's no different than me telling people I have fair skin, like rock music, am disorganized, am overweight, or need to wear glasses.

I've often had problems with people who are so avoiding of making labels, as if they are saying nobody should ever notice others' differences because it can cause conflict. That's a very cowardly stance, and IMO we should rather embrace and understand others' differences. If we are conflicted with others' differences so much that we feel the only way to solve them is to simple "ignore" them or deny that they exist, what does that say about humanity?

[Jaden]

I think we need to recognize our differences and celebrate them, not cower in fear of them. I don't think labeling each other as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" divides us. Certainly, those who use such labels as means of attack do, but if they didn't have those labels to use, they'd just find other ways to do it. If we pretend like there are no differences, then all we're doing is bringing other people down in a different way.

Labeling our sexuality doesn't make us closed-minded or rigid, it just makes it easy to keep track of where and who we are and keep it all straight in our minds.

[Nekojin]

The only problem with the way sexuality is presented in modern society is that it's presented as a "three-position switch" - Straight, gay, or bi. It's actually a very broad radial range, like a clock - at "3-o-clock" you have straight, "9-o-clock" is gay, "6-o-clock" is bisexual/pansexual, and "midnight" is asexual. There's everything under the sun, and quite a few things that aren't even represented on that clock chart.

[TheHuckster]

The only problem with the way sexuality is presented in modern society is that it's presented as a "three-position switch" - Straight, gay, or bi. It's actually a very broad radial range, like a clock - at "3-o-clock" you have straight, "9-o-clock" is gay, "6-o-clock" is bisexual/pansexual, and "midnight" is asexual. There's everything under the sun, and quite a few things that aren't even represented on that clock chart.

Wouldn't, say, 5-o-clock simply be bi-sexual as well, with the person preferring the opposite gender just a little more than the same?

I mean, virtually every "label" has some kind of a spectrum associated with it. I said I'm disorganized, but I'm still more organized than others. I stated I need glasses, but if it became a life-and-death situation I could still drive with only moderate difficulty, whereas other people are completely helpless without their glasses. Skin tones and ethnicity are obviously variable, but people might still describe themselves as black, white, asian, or what have you.

[Andara Bledin]

Labels don't inherently have to result in othering.

They, like so many other maligned things, are merely a tool; a form of shorthand used in between states of not knowing and having refined knowledge.

Also, lack of labels is unlikely to really do anything at all to keep people from acting like tribalistic bigots, either.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I thoroughly despise the notion that "labeling" is evil, wrong, or any other negative attribute whatsoever. Arguing against "labeling" is neither more nor less, logically, than arguing against language itself.

[siead_lietrathua]

i like the dan savage theory, and think i have posted it on here before. to paraphrase:
if we don't label ourselves as gay/bi/other, people will assume we are straight.
so unless we label ourselves we can't get laid.
and my getting laid is more important than your comfort of labels

[crashhelmet]

I like the analogy of the clock.

Labels are, or can be, wrong because of what they promote. Yes, they help promote individuality, but you have to remember that discrimination of all kinds is fueled by labels. It's based off of labels. That's why I see labels as bad things.

Just because we recognize differences, it doesn't mean we have to exploit them.

Back to sexuality, there are so many different spots on the spectrum that people fall into that the generalized labels don't fit, but some people still force them. It gets back to my argument on the thread about the pedophiles.

Is the declaration that an adult male that is sexually attracted to little boys is not homosexual because the age automatically trumps the sex, even if they're not attracted to little girls, or because people are trying to steer away from the lies that all homosexuals are also pedophiles?

[TheHuckster]

Is the declaration that an adult male that is sexually attracted to little boys is not homosexual because the age automatically trumps the sex, even if they're not attracted to little girls, or because people are trying to steer away from the lies that all homosexuals are also pedophiles?

It's a little bit of both. The article in question is about someone who assaulted a child. When someone brings up their sexual orientation in a way that suggests that was part of the reason for the assault, that's where you start getting into offensive territory.

It's the same that happens when a black man robs a bank, and you get all kinds of comments referencing his race. Or when a woman is involved in a car accident and there's all kinds of "women drivers" jokes. Being black and being a woman is, in and of itself, not a bad thing, but when you comment on it in such a way that it seems you're linking those descriptions to the crimes or accidents they committed, it comes across as a bigoted statement. The same is true when you bring up homosexuality when a man molests a boy.

Nobody is denying that the individual is homosexual, it's just that this fact is totally irrelevant to the story, just as a heterosexual male who assaults a little girl is just as much a pedophile but his orientation has no bearing on the monstrosity of the crime.

Contrast this to another context, where someone wishes to be set up on a date, and says he/she is a straight or gay person. That's a label, sure, but it's relevant to the discussion, in the same way one would say they prefer blondes to brunettes, which are just as much labels.

[crashhelmet]

Nobody is denying that the individual is homosexual,

But they are. They're saying he's not a homosexual, he's a pedophile. That pedophiles don't care about gender.

[TheHuckster]

But they are. They're saying he's not a homosexual, he's a pedophile. That pedophiles don't care about gender.

Alright, fine, the commenters who say that specifically are simply wrong.

That doesn't change the fact that there are those who bring up homosexuality as if it were relevant to the incident, and those who rebuke them saying it has nothing to do with that. It also doesn't change the fact that "labels" aren't the problem in any of these issues. Mislabeling, perhaps, or maybe assigning a label without getting all the facts, but not the mere existence of labels.

[HYHYBT]

No, they're not wrong, they're simply using terms differently. And it matters. Look at the whole path, please.

1. The assertion is made that molesting a child of your own sex means you are homosexual. This is
false in the normal usage, which refers to adults, but is true if you instead insist on an expanded meaning that treats sexual interest in children as if it were not categotically different.

2. About half (let's say) of abuse victims are the same sex as their molesters.

3. This means that around half of child molesters are homosexual.

4. The percentage of the general population that is homosexual is, say, 5%. Depends on who you ask, of course, but certainly it's nowhere near 50%.

5. This means that 50% of molesters come from only 5% of the population.

6. Therefore, that 5%, the gay folks, are disproportionally inclined to molest children. We're evil scum that needs to be distrusted, avoided, and given no rights, especially not letting us adopt or raise children.

The problem is in the deceptively intuitive misdirection hidden in the definition used in step 1.

Here, this explains the problem pretty well. That a word *seems like it ought* to mean something doesn't make it any less wrong to use it that way when 1) you know (because you've been told, and whether you like it or not) that that's incorrect, and 2) the implications are so awful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY

[Gravekeeper]

I thoroughly despise the notion that "labeling" is evil, wrong, or any other negative attribute whatsoever. Arguing against "labeling" is neither more nor less, logically, than arguing against language itself.

^ That right there.

"Labels" are a function of intelligence and central point to why we are currently capable of having this discussion. Without the ability to categorize and label, we would still have the social intelligence of a herd animal. Incapable of understanding or articulating beyond the limits of our monkey sphere. The variances of sexuality are simply to allow us to express the concept of a particular sexuality through language. Without said variances, you would have to say "He's sexually attracted to women" instead of simply "He's heterosexual" in order to express the same concept.

We label to understand and express, not seperate.

[LewisLegion]

Labels in most instances are fine and extremely relevant. The key is to know when they are or are not appropriate. A person's sexuality, be it heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual, is a trait. Labeling a trait for what it is, is absolutely fine. Yes, all are aspects of sexuality, but 'sexuality' is a broad term (like canine) where as saying 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' narrows it down (wolf, and coyote).

Finding it offensive to use the term homosexuality for someone who is, in fact, homosexual, is like finding it offensive to use the term 'brunette' or 'right-handed' or 'hazel eyed'. It's a descriptive that translates accurately the desired information.

Other labels are more gray...such as the odd propensity to call someone a 'meterosexual' or 'effeminate' or 'butch' or 'femme'. Accurate, perhaps, and not exactly offensive, but more a pigeonholing of someone's personality into a very narrow portion of itself, and it has the potential of being used more offensively.

Other labels still are outright offensive and should not be used. Calling someone African-American is a label...calling someone a n***** is ALSO a label, but a horribly offensive one. I don't find being called homosexual offensive in any way. I am one, and why be concerned with or offended by it?

I do find being called a 'dyke' or a 'faggot' offensive. Those are the labels we need to look out for.