NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

They're called chips.

But I know exactly what you're getting at.

It's just so egocentric isn't it? "Oh, since they're gay and gay men will hump a dog if they could I bet they think I'm really hot and want to do me because I totally don't have my head up my ass."

It's not like I think all women would take their clothes off and jump on me, so why would I think that about gay men?

I think I'm unatractive by anyones standards:p

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

That would depend upon the gay guy's taste in men...

I have been hit on by gay guys before, so obviously I'm attractive to some.

Beats me, although I'd be quite flattered.

Have you considered that perhaps the wording of what they said is important?

Perhaps... they didn't want gay men checking them out because they knew they'd be considered inferior?

Beats me, although I'd be quite flattered.

Same.

Psh, Girls arent even attracted to me...I seriously doubt Gays would be, im pretty sure its a much more competitive market, lol...:p

I don't even think about it. If some guy is hitting on me I wouldn't even know it unless it was severely overt.

Same.

For me at least, I'm pretty sure it's mostly other accountants who find accountants attractive...

If a gay man ever did decide to "check me out", I'd pin a fucking medal on his chest. Cuz he'd be the first person. Ever.

While gay people checking you out may be uncomfterable, ANYONE (gay or straight) eavesdropping is far more annoying.

And what the fuck are "crisps", nigga. I want that purple stuff, baby. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UayQTu2kH-U)

I think I'm unatractive by anyones standards:p

You know that old saying. There is someone for everyone.

I wouldn't mind gay men checking me out. At least I would feel wanted :\

I've been hit on once (Rather flattering actually, especially as at the time I seemed to be able to turn off women just by walking into a room) so I assume that SOME think so, but in the great game of life I don't think I'm all that interesting (Most people finding giant teddy bears to be comforting but not too interesting sexually) and even if I was... so what? If I get checked out, well, I've checked out women so why should I fuss about it? If I get propositioned I'll check the guy for obvious signs of a head injury/being drunk or stoned and get medical help. :D

I have been hit on by gay guys before, so obviously I'm attractive to some.

But, do you think you're Sarkhaan hot? Damn, I should've made a poll option just for that hot bitch...

I don't even think about it. If some guy is hitting on me I wouldn't even know it unless it was severely overt.

What would be overt?

What would be overt?

Someone touching your scrotum. That sounds overt to me.

You know that old saying. There is someone for everyone.

yes, but I have a feeling my "someone" has scales and fangs, if it's based on looks.


not that I have a problem with that.

What would be overt?

Some guy coming up and saying "hi what's your name?" in a very friendly tone. Sounds cheesy but I own a bar and people do that all the time.

Someone touching your scrotum. That sounds overt to me.

That's not hitting on someone, though. That's molesting them.

Some guy coming up and saying "hi what's your name?" in a very friendly tone. Sounds cheesy but I own a bar and people do that all the time.

You have some lame patrons.

That's not hitting on someone, though. That's molesting them.

True, but it is quite overt.

But, do you think you're Sarkhaan hot? Damn, I should've made a poll option just for that hot bitch...

Nope, I don't think I'm hot at all.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Well, I know I'm attractive to a gay man, since I've been hit on by a gay man. But it was that crusty old dude who stands by the bathroom and hits on everyone a lot younger than himself. When it happened, I was kind of flattered, but when I heard a gay friend complaining about the generic crusty old bear at the gay club hitting on him, I recognized the description, and now I feel properly nonchalant if not embarrassed by it.

So to directly answer your question, I'd say not very. Partly because I'm not especially attractive to other people generally, partly because of history, and partly because of all the people other people know, I'm usually described as the most heterosexual male (and by this they mean it descriptively, as in there is no possible world in which I could be gay) they know. As such, a gay man with any amount of self-respect would be as likely to throw himself at me as I would be to throw myself at a butch lesbian. Which is to say, not especially likely.

That would depend upon the gay guy's taste in men...
This.


And why are you so annoyed that people you find unattractive (or find do not fit the stereotype of attractiveness, I dunno by what you go there) stating such a thing?
It's not like this kind of subconscious boasting were unheard of when the topic is about women. And it isn't unheard of that 'ugly' people do have their admirers, too.

arent some men just that way? they think they are so hot that men, women and dogs want them.

You have some lame patrons. They pay the bills. Most of the people that show up are middle class. It is an Irish pub after all.

But, do you think you're Sarkhaan hot? Damn, I should've made a poll option just for that hot bitch...

haha...nope, clearly doesn't bother me, as I tend to encourage it...

Perhaps they just believe that gay men are like they are and will fuck anything that moves regardless of standards.

arent some men just that way? they think they are so hot that men, women and dogs want them.
Same goes for some women.
And I bet for most dogs anyways.

Given how effeminate I am, I think it's more of a misunderstanding on their part. Several of my gay friends have told me that I do come off as gay. I don't really mind it, and out of the 5-8 guys who've hit on me, I recall dancing with one anyways. It was fun, but pretty clearly convinced me that I'm not bisexual.

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Well, the thing is, different people have different tastes.

I know that I have had a few gay crushes on me(They knew I was straight, which buggered the hell out of them to no end), but I'm not saying *all* gay men are attracted to me, in the least.

I would say, all-in-all, I'm just around "average", I would assume. Not a jaw-dropper, or a head turner, but probably the guy you'd go for after a few(Not alot) of drinks, if you get what I'm saying. However, you wouldn't be bothered greatly once you found out I was straight, and wouldn't have the "Damn, I can't believe I can't be with him!" feeling.

Basically, you wouldn't check me out every time I enter the room, but you might give me a once over, and not be appalled. :p

haha...nope, clearly doesn't bother me, as I tend to encourage it...

Attention whore?

I have a micropenis

Attention whore?

No particularly, no. That was more a joke directed towards Fass.

Generally, I don't even notice when people stare at me or flirt with me, and hate having the spotlight on me.

No particularly, no. That was more a joke directed towards Fass.

Generally, I don't even notice when people stare at me or flirt with me, and hate having the spotlight on me.

Sounds like a typical guy to me.

Men and male features neither attract nor repel me, but there are certainly certain features and men I consider attractive. This seems to differ somewhat from what other men and women are attracted to or find attractive. SOme people agree with me, many don't. Perhaps I fit that same category because some women and men have been attracted to me. Many aren't. I'm relatively short, my body proportions are odd(I have a long torso and short arms and legs), I'm fit and athletic but not sculpted. I'm not a sasquatch, but I have a bit more back hair than I suspect most people find attractive(I bet it would look nicer braided). I have a decent sized bulge, but it's all testicle. I get a lot of 'nice ass' comments.

As for other men, I think there's a certain aspect of the male ego, especially around other men that needs to the man to feel attractive, desirable and sexual to be a man. Consider the differences between our opinions of promiscuous men vs. promiscuous women and you catch a glimpse of male attitudes when in the company of other men.

Personally, I make up for any appearance deficits by being great in bed. :cool:

I'm the reason there are gay men.

Sounds like a typical guy to me.

Oblivious, but willing to joke around?

Thanks, I think...haha


*goes off to be awkward*

I must be decent, because Ive had a "recruiter" approach me and Ive had a few gay guys hit on me before.


But I dont think that all gay dudes check me out. And if they do I dont care. because Im not one of those homophobes who thinks theyre gonna rape me.


Gonna be honost though. I dont care what gay guys think of me. Because I fuck vagina. And Ive never had a problem getting that oppertunity. So :p

I used to date a girl who was what's known as a fag-hag, a girl adopted by circle of gay friends.

They were constantly trying to make me eat gay cake, nothing really and purely for their own amusement, it was just cake they'd offer me and when I ate it they'd solemnly announce that I'd eaten gay cake and I would soon be one of them, then burst into laughter.

On and on and on it went, if I refused the cake they'd call me a homophobe - it was all teasing, none of them hit on me though.

Mostly, I think people check whether you're gay first before overtly approaching you, I don't think it's hard to ascertain, I'm oblivious to the signals and I guess that marks me out as straight.

I think I'd be as "hot" to gay men as I am for women...and I've never had a problem getting women. I don't know...to you gay people out there...is there some easily recognized different between what you look for in guys physically and what girls do? Maybe that could help me answer.

For me at least, I'm pretty sure it's mostly other accountants who find accountants attractive...

Or lawyers, they don't have many other options.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

I wish there was a "meh," option in this poll, because expresses my opinion very well in this case. I don't think I'm much to look at really. Not hideous, but not good-looking enough to be noticed or "checked out". I wouldn't really mind if a dude thought I was attractive. I don't really get what the fuss is about. Most gay guys I know aren't stupid enough to waste their time pointlessly hitting on a straight guy, even if they do think he's good-looking. It's like a straight guy hitting on a lesbian. What's the point? It's an expenditure of time and effort for which there isn't really much of a reward.

I mean, if you say it how it really is, it's a fear of someone you're not attracted to being attracted to you. What are dudes afraid of? That the homosexual is going to grab is junk or rape him or something? It sounds pretty silly.

That the homosexual is going to grab is junk or rape him or something? It sounds pretty silly.

I don't see why that'd be such a big deal...but then, the most action I got in the last month was when a student grabbed my ass and I had to suspend them...

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?
From the number of times gay men have tried to chat me up in the gym and the number of women I've met who have thought me gay, I'd say I'm apparently pretty damn attractive. Either that or there's lots of desperate gays floating about in all the gyms I've been in.

There's also the other side of the coin:
Those of us straight guys who also care about their appearance immeidately being thought of as gay by gay guys. Hey guys, just because a fellow man looks good doesn't automatically mean he's gay. I know this may come as a shock to you and your stereotypical worldview but not all straight guys are slobs and it's not only gays who work-out, like Armani and use JPG deodorants.

Whoa. Do you mean that gay or straight, white, black, brown, red, or yellow, male or female, people can be conceited assholes?

Whoa. Do you mean that gay or straight, white, black, brown, red, or yellow, male or female, people can be conceited assholes?

Moreso that they may have conceited assholes.

I have a micropenis

:rolleyes: Thank you for sharing, Timmy.

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Not a real question.

'Straight' and 'gay' are points on the same line. There are no 'straight' men.

Not a real question.

'Straight' and 'gay' are points on the same line. There are no 'straight' men.

What now?

How now?

How so?

What now?

How now?

How so?

Ever see a black man? I mean -actually 'black'? No reflected light, nothin'?

There are no 'straight' men.

There are no 'straight' men.
I'm very law-abiding I'll have you know.

I'm very law-abiding I'll have you know.

:)

You don't have to make it illegal if no-one wants to do it...

Ever see a black man? I mean -actually 'black'? No reflected light, nothin'?

There are no 'straight' men.

I understand that 'straight' and 'gay' both being terms denoting sexual preference are located on the same line. This leaves me confused however, as to your point that there are no 'straight' men.
Assuming you understand that 'straight' is a colloquial term for 'heterosexual' and 'gay' is commonly used to denote 'homosexuality', then your argument doesn't follow.(or at least I don't follow it)

So no, while I have never seen a man reflect absolutely no light, as that would mean his entire person would be completely black, I do understand that 'black' in that case refers to 'a person with darker skin tone whose ancestors probably originated from some region of Africa'.

You know that old saying. There is someone for everyone.

S/he must be very busy....

anyway, since when I go out in public I do my best to project an air of "No, I'm not interested in you," I can say with almost complete confidence that I wouldn't get a second look. (To actually be hit on, you have to indicate in some way that you are "on the market." I'm not.) Except from extremely self-centered and oblivious people who I wouldn't be interested in anyway.

I understand that 'straight' and 'gay' both being terms denoting sexual preference are located on the same line. This leaves me confused however, as to your point that there are no 'straight' men.
Assuming you understand that 'straight' is a colloquial term for 'heterosexual' and 'gay' is commonly used to denote 'homosexuality', then your argument doesn't follow.(or at least I don't follow it)

So no, while I have never seen a man reflect absolutely no light, as that would mean his entire person would be completely black, I do understand that 'black' in that case refers to 'a person with darker skin tone whose ancestors probably originated from some region of Africa'.

Whilst, at the same time accepting that no single person is either totally black', nor 'white'?

Whilst, at the same time accepting that no single person is either totally black', nor 'white'?

I am going to assume that no single person is entirely of one solid colour, black or white.

While I am a believer that the truth is generally in the grey regions, I am not sure you can apply this reasoning to everything. Some things just are what they are and some things aren't. I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to find someone who either had absolutely no heterosexual or absolutely no homosexual preferences.

I attract insects. They find me irresistable.

I understand that 'straight' and 'gay' both being terms denoting sexual preference are located on the same line. This leaves me confused however, as to your point that there are no 'straight' men.
Assuming you understand that 'straight' is a colloquial term for 'heterosexual' and 'gay' is commonly used to denote 'homosexuality', then your argument doesn't follow.(or at least I don't follow it)

So no, while I have never seen a man reflect absolutely no light, as that would mean his entire person would be completely black, I do understand that 'black' in that case refers to 'a person with darker skin tone whose ancestors probably originated from some region of Africa'.


The point was the theory that every person inherently yields all (or alot) sexual preferences, just with different dominances. To the point where most 'straight' people neglect their homosexual preferences due to them paling before the dominant heterosexual preference.

I am going to assume that no single person is entirely of one solid colour, black or white.

While I am a believer that the truth is generally in the grey regions, I am not sure you can apply this reasoning to everything. Some things just are what they are and some things aren't. I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to find someone who either had absolutely no heterosexual or absolutely no homosexual preferences.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone who CLAIMED that to be the case.

I'm not so sure they would be relating something 'true' though, more... what they wanted to be.

ewww gyms are for suckers who like to think that all that equipment is necessary when really they just go to lie to themselves ;)

I've been hit on once or twice by gay men (and outright had a guy who didn't understand no so I know how women feel) but I'd say these two guys where just trying to do that macho-homophobe thing

like Armani and use JPG deodorants.

oh thats not gay, your just rich :p

:rolleyes: Thank you for sharing, Timmy.

when in the sauna these things are of central debate

The point was the theory that every person inherently yields all (or alot) sexual preferences, just with different dominances. To the point where most 'straight' people neglect their homosexual preferences due to them paling before the dominant heterosexual preference.
How does one explain asexuals then?

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone who CLAIMED that to be the case.

I'm not so sure they would be relating something 'true' though, more... what they wanted to be.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone who CLAIMED people are only claiming it to be the case, but I can't verify that either.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone who CLAIMED people are only claiming it to be the case, but I can't verify that either.

I've not had sex with everyone in the world. Hell, I've not even met most of them.

I certainly can't say for sure that I categorically don't fancy ANY of the men... there might be a number of them I'd fancy, I just haven't met them yet, right?

So - while I seem straight... that could just be a matter of perspective and timing, no?

when in the sauna these things are of central debate

Men are weird. :-D

I've not had sex with everyone in the world. Hell, I've not even met most of them.
Amateur. :p
I certainly can't say for sure that I categorically don't fancy ANY of the men... there might be a number of them I'd fancy, I just haven't met them yet, right?
Yes. Nor can you categorically, metaphorically, or rhetorically say for sure that you do.
So - while I seem straight... that could just be a matter of perspective and timing, no?
Could. Yes.

Amateur. :p

Yes. Nor can you categorically, metaphorically, or rhetorically say for sure that you do.

Could. Yes.

Mathematics favours my supposition. The evidence has been that - even among the gender I prefer, I don't 'prefer' most of them... but every so often, of the many, I find a few I do like.

Statistically, thefore, I'm forced to assume that - of all then humans,o feither gender, there is a probability that therer are some of my 'non-prefered' gender that I might like.

Add to that - I'm inclined to believe everyone swings both ways to some extent, and most of the denial is just that.

Men are weird. :-D

little known fact is that back in ancient times a micro penis was considered good ;)

How does one explain asexuals then?
With an absence of any strong dominance and possibly a not so pregnant sexual urge in general.
I am not totally sure, it's just a theory, and I am not a firm supporter of many theories.

little known fact is that back in ancient times a micro penis was considered good ;)

Now only if you could invent yourself a time machine.......

Men are weird. :-D


Hey all of us men sprung from a woman's womb.

Hey all of us men sprung from a woman's womb.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dignified.png

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Meh we all know that people are differant, are you trying to tell us that all gay men are as you say? That there are no gay men that love the thrill of trying to hook a stright man?

Let it go man, so you found two prats, there are loads of em out there, yep yep even some gay men.

much as i think gay men are just as cool as anything else born with male genitalia (which ain't all that much if their born human), i'd just as soon they did NOT find me at all "attractive".

=^^=
.../\...

much as i think gay men are just as cool as anything else born with male genitalia (which ain't all that much if their born human), i'd just as soon they did NOT find me at all "attractive".

=^^=
.../\...

Why though?

i'd just as soon they did NOT find me at all "attractive".

not getting any?:p

I think I'd be as "hot" to gay men as I am for women...and I've never had a problem getting women. I don't know...to you gay people out there...is there some easily recognized different between what you look for in guys physically and what girls do? Maybe that could help me answer.That depends on if women are serious or lying when they say "size doesn't matter" ;)

not getting any?:p

i thank the gods and goddessess for male menopause.

=^^=
.../\...

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be [to] a gay man?

Though I reject the notion that only gay men care about their appearance and bodies, I'm not sure why you're surprised straight men can have the same amount of ego that you display.

I don't think I've ever attracted someone of the same sex, which is a shame as I'm bisexual. I was once told by a friend that I don't "look bi", which was slightly mystifying, you'd have thought that sexuality had progressed beyond stereotypes of what people look like.

I have been propositioned, although Im certainly no catch.
I was flattered as hell.
That didnt mean I was suddenly into guys, however.

I think this guy must have been lonely or something, and dug guys with long hair.
I dunno.

Its good to know that If I ever wake up one morning with a desire for dick, I can pick up at least one lonely gay drunk at a bar.

Wooooot!

A bloke did try to pick me up once on the tram, but he was coming home from the Melbourne Cup & was obviously a bit over-refreshed. :p It was a nice ego boost though. :)

That was the one & only time, so I wouldn't assume that other men were checking me out, or find me attractive.

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

The correct, Miss Manner's approved, way of dealing with that situation is to say: "You don't have anything to worry about there."

Another, Miss Manner's not-approved, way of dealing with this is by pointedly looking at the guy's crotch and saying "No fear of that every happening...."

Most of the time I don't even notice it when women are checking me out and/or hitting on me, and now I am supposed to pay attention to guys possibly doing the same? Meh, I don't care if they do.

Anyway, If it gets too bad, I can alway start selling tickets.

The correct, Miss Manner's approved, way of dealing with that situation is to say: "You don't have anything to worry about there."

Another, Miss Manner's not-approved, way of dealing with this is by pointedly looking at the guy's crotch and saying "No fear of that every happening...."

LG approved: "You can tell if they are by the derisive laughter."

:)

I've always found it adorable how the most obnoxious grunting frat-boy homophobes are CONVINCED that every single gay man in the world is out for their sweet frat-boy ass. The uglier, smellier, and more socially repulsive the frat-boy, the more convinced he is that he's irresistible to gay men and straight women alike.

I've always found it adorable how the most obnoxious grunting frat-boy homophobes are CONVINCED that every single gay man in the world is out for their sweet frat-boy ass. The uglier, smellier, and more socially repulsive the frat-boy, the more convinced he is that he's irresistible to gay men and straight women alike.

Have a major axe to grind there, do you?

Have a major axe to grind there, do you?
?

Not at all. Didn't you read my post? I find that behavior cute and entertaining.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Maybe it's the fact that in the US, you can go into nearly any public restroom along the Interstate (the large highways we have here), and you'll find at least one gay man offering his ass to ANYONE regardless of what they look like.

Log on to a swinger's site chat room here, and you'll find 5 to 10 in a straight chat room, offering the same thing.

Stereotypes are often based in reality.

Well men want me, and women want to be me.:D

Sadly i am straight male:(

I had the flattering experience of having a gay guy come on to me once, but it was probably more likely that he was mistaking me for my brother, whom I resemble and who IS gay.

And this was at a gay bar anyway. (Yeah, figure that out.)

But no in general I don't flatter myself in assuming I'm hot to either women or gay men.

Well I'm straight but I'm really used to be at the taste of at least some gay mens...

One of my gay friend used to invite me in parties in order to be certain that all the guests will come.
I wasn't informed and I don't liked that when I discovered the whole thing.

In fact I have, on the whole, been far more frequently under seductions attempts from men than women.
Edit: and this doesn't bother me.

PS:
I don't make extensive sport and don't pay much attention to my appearence.

Not a real question.

'Straight' and 'gay' are points on the same line. There are no 'straight' men.

Spoken like a true "bisexual" who likes to think he can deny everyone else's sexuality, in a vain attempt to cover up the non-existence of his own.

Spoken like a true "bisexual" who likes to think he can deny everyone else's sexuality, in a vain attempt to cover up the non-existence of his own.

Spoken like a true Swede, who likes to think that his opinions are the last word on sexuality.

I'm probably more attractive to gay men than straight women. But that's not really saying much. Still, I've always noted that if only I were gay, I would probably not be having this much difficulty with my personal life at this moment. For one thing, men are easier to manipulate. Oh well though.

Spoken like a true Swede, who likes to think that his opinions are the last word on sexuality.

If he thinks he can deny anyone else's sexuality, then his own is in play to be denied as well, even more so than anyone else's actually since he freely admits, like most of these "bisexuals" who deny everyone else's sexuality, that his "bisexuality" is purely theoretical (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13599605&postcount=65) and has no basis in reality. It cannot be anything else of course, since he's making it up, and then goes and denies the true, non-theoretical sexualities of other people just to cover up the non-existence of his own.

It's really an old shtick for "bisexuals" who never actually practice bisexuality, but only use these theoretical thought experiments to express a skewed bi-supremacism. Bisexuals, without quotation marks, rare as though they may be who actually have had sex with both straight people and gay people and enter into relationships with both genders know that there are indeed other sexualities and don't bother denying anyone else's, especially as they in many cases are acutely aware of the hypocrisy that lies in a bisexual denying other people's sexuality, when theirs is the most deniable and denied one of all, thanks in large part to the poisoning of their well by "bisexuals" like Grave_n_idle.

Spoken like a true "bisexual" who likes to think he can deny everyone else's sexuality, in a vain attempt to cover up the non-existence of his own.

I'm sure that makes sense to you. One would have to hope.

I don't really waste time on you, because you think it okay to spout this kind of turgid wank at other people, whilst simultaneously pissing your pants if anyone dares to question your oh-so omnipotent pretensions.

Feel free to fuck off as hard as you can.

Bisexuals, without quotation marks, rare as though they may be who actually have had sex with both straight people and gay people and enter into relationships with both genders know that there are indeed other sexualities and don't bother denying anyone else's, especially as they in many cases are acutely aware of the hypocrisy that lies in a bisexual denying other people's sexuality, when theirs is the most deniable one of all, thanks in large part to the poising of their well by "bisexuals" like Grave_n_idle.

Nice construction of that sentence.

I'm sure that makes sense to you. One would have to hope.

I don't really waste time on you, because you think it okay to spout this kind of turgid wank at other people, whilst simultaneously pissing your pants if anyone dares to question your oh-so omnipotent pretensions.

Feel free to fuck off as hard as you can.

So, wait, you find it upsetting that someone would deny your sexuality exists, so upsetting in fact you resort to base cursing over it, but when you do the exact same thing - when you tell straight and gay people their sexualities don't exist - you think that's fine and dandy and that you don't equally deserve to "fuck off as hard as you can"? Right.

It's really an old shtick for "bisexuals" who never actually practice bisexuality, but only use these theoretical thought experiments to express a skewed bi-supremacism. Bisexuals, without quotation marks, rare as though they may be who actually have had sex with both straight people and gay people and enter into relationships with both genders know that there are indeed other sexualities and don't bother denying anyone else's, especially as they in many cases are acutely aware of the hypocrisy that lies in a bisexual denying other people's sexuality, when theirs is the most deniable and denied one of all, thanks in large part to the poisoning of their well by "bisexuals" like Grave_n_idle.
I'm sure I'm putting my foot in it by asking this, but...

I'm attracted to both men and women. I've fucked both men and women. I've dated both men and women. I don't love being called "bisexual," because I find the entire concept of binary gender stupid, but that's the conventional term for people with my general type of sexuality.

I must be missing some things, because I just don't see:

--How G_n_I is "poisoning the well" for me as a bisexual
--How he's denying other people's sexuality
--Why my sexuality is the "most deniable of all"
--How on Earth you can conclude that bisexuality is rare, given that the overwhelming majority of self-identified heterosexuals have experienced homosexual desire at one point or another, and at least half of them have had homosexual contact at least once
--How noting the existence of a spectrum of human sexuality equates to denying the existence of various points along that spectrum

If you feel like clearing any of these up, that would be great.

So, wait, you find it upsetting that someone would deny your sexuality exists, so upsetting in fact you resort to base cursing over it, but when you do the exact same thing - when you tell straight and gay people their sexualities don't exist - you think that's fine and dandy and that you don't equally deserve to "fuck off as hard as you can"? Right.
I haven't seen G_n_I say any of that. Can you provide links please?

Maybe I'm just reading him differently than you. When I see G_n_I say that there are no straight guys, I read that as an indictment of the system of labeling sexuality...NOT a denial of the fact that there are men who live their lives only feeling attraction toward women. It's not that the sexuality doesn't exist, it's that the labels we put on sexuality aren't so great.

But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

So, wait, you find it upsetting that someone would deny your sexuality exists, so upsetting in fact you resort to base cursing over it, but when you do the exact same thing - when you tell straight and gay people their sexualities don't exist - you think that's fine and dandy and that you don't equally deserve to "fuck off as hard as you can"? Right.

In a sense, he wasn't denying other sexualities exist, rather that it is possible people will change their self-labels if presented with every person in the world. It is an agnostic position. How can you possibly know with all certainty that you will never be attracted to any woman? To claim it is just because they are female is incredibly sexist.

In a sense, he wasn't denying other sexualities exist, rather that it is possible people will change their self-labels if presented with every person in the world. It is an agnostic position. How can you possibly know with all certainty that you will never be attracted to any woman? To claim it is just because they are female is incredibly sexist.

If someone who claims they will never be attracted to females is sexist, what is someone who claims they will never be attracted to animals?

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

I can't answer, seeing as how I'm a woman, I'd automatically be disqualified, not at all attractive to gay men. Not to say I'm not good looking, just being realistic. Plus what good is a gay man to me? A lesbian on the other hand is fine my me.

So, wait, you find it upsetting that someone would deny your sexuality exists, so upsetting in fact you resort to base cursing over it, but when you do the exact same thing - when you tell straight and gay people their sexualities don't exist - you think that's fine and dandy and that you don't equally deserve to "fuck off as hard as you can"? Right.

Again - I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Nowhere have I talked about anyone 'denying my sexuality exists'. I certinly didn't claim it upsets me.

I do object to your posturing like you are the one arbiter of sexuality - in the face of a growing field of evidence that suggests that 'pure' sexualities are either an artifact, or an anomoloy - and that we are all 'sexual'... neither hetero- nor homo- just sexual. We may find ourselves at different points on the line... maybe even at different points from one day to the next.

Hell, you've discussed on here before, about women you would (or, I seem to recall, have) find attractive in that way - so obviously even you don't buy into the vision you pretend.

Indeed - it seems it is you, not I, that is upset about the denial of 'sexuality'... like that is something that actually defines a person?

The 'fuck off as hard as you can' thing rotates around your seeming prediliction for issuing your little edicts wihtout any wish to be countermanded... but at the same time, you attack others. It's hypocrisy, and I have no time for it.

If someone who claims they will never be attracted to females is sexist, what is someone who claims they will never be attracted to animals?

Umm normal? Not Welsh?

If someone who claims they will never be attracted to females is sexist, what is someone who claims they will never be attracted to animals?

A normal human?

Your analogy is not comparable, animals do not have the same rights or are given the same respect as humans.

--How G_n_I is "poisoning the well" for me as a bisexual

If you look at his own statements in this thread, you see that he hasn't actually done anything bisexual or stuck to it. It's all "maths" and "thought experiments" to him. His ilk is a dime a dozen out there in the clubs (they're mostly girls, fortunately for me but unfortunately for lesbians, but it is vexing when that "bisexual" guy turns out to be one of the "theoretically bi" straight men instead of as is mostly the case a gay man in denial trying to have one foot stuck in mommy's good graces) and there is a reason bisexuals have had a sort of sexual pariah state evolve on them: people don't like being jerked around for what is in the end "maths" and "thought experiments" instead of an actual sexuality and potential to hook up or get something more serious.

--How he's denying other people's sexuality

"There are no straight men."

--Why my sexuality is the "most deniable of all"

The poisoning of the well effect again: the "bisexuals" who like to proclaim that theirs is the only sexuality - "there are no straight men! Everyone is bi!" - most of the time turn out to be what I wrote about earlier and what Grave_n_Idle is. Hence, bisexuality is widely one of the most denied sexualities out there - go out to a club and see what people really think about "bisexuality" and see how many of the "bisexual" girls are so only up to the point of munching actual carpet. That's why it's so ironic for bisexuals to claim that no one is "straight" or "gay", when there's even a pithy motto out there to stand as a testament to how incredulous people have become to bisexuality: "You're either gay, straight or lying."

--How on Earth you can conclude that bisexuality is rare, given that the overwhelming majority of self-identified heterosexuals have experienced homosexual desire at one point or another, and at least half of them have had homosexual contact at least once.

Einmal ist niemals. I've fucked women, even more than once. Didn't make me straight or bi. Just because you can imagine yourself doing something and actually do it once or twice, doesn't mean it's something you prefer to do and something that you'll keep up.

--How noting the existence of a spectrum of human sexuality equates to denying the existence of various points along that spectrum

"There are no straight men." That is denying "various points along that spectrum." The spectrum being bullshit, of course, but I'll grant you it.

If you feel like clearing any of these up, that would be great.

How courteous of you.

I haven't seen G_n_I say any of that. Can you provide links please?

Maybe I'm just reading him differently than you. When I see G_n_I say that there are no straight guys, I read that as an indictment of the system of labeling sexuality...NOT a denial of the fact that there are men who live their lives only feeling attraction toward women. It's not that the sexuality doesn't exist, it's that the labels we put on sexuality aren't so great.

But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

You're not. I'm a 'straight' guy, in terms of functionality. But I don't know what my underlying orientation is (if there is such a thing), and I'm not sure anyone can really claim a hard-and-fast set position on the matter with any real conviction... not in a 'this is how it is, how it was, how it shall be' manner, at least. I can live 'straight', without 'being straight' - if that makes any sense. Even if I'm never ever attracted to a man I meet, that still only tells me that I've never met one I'm attracted to - not anything about how I would feel if 'mr right' came along.

Havent really had the time to read through all the posts, but, I experienced something similar in the Danish army while I was going through sergeants training.

For some odd reason, one of my comrades happened to stumble on some half nude pictures of one of my friends and roommates on some sort of dating site, clearly stating he was looking for other men. He also found some pictures at a little known 'gay in the danish army' site.

So, we talked about it behind his back the rest of the week, debating if he -really- was gay or not. In the weekend, where most of the other guys were heading home to families and stuff, i had to stay behind, and so did he, so I figured, what the heck, lets ask him. Turns out, he was gay.

Anyway, thats besides the point. The interesting thing was, that when he told everyone the following week, a lot of the reactions, still behind his back, was... "I've been taking showers with him standing next to me every day, how disgusting!" and "Eww, you share a room with him, how do you deal with that?" and the fat guy of the group, good fella, (could run longer than I could due to heavy icehockey practice) said. "If he tries anything, I am going to beat him up."
I couldnt stop laughing about that, seriously, if he was going to jump on anyone, it would have been me, and he didnt... :D j/k

But, he never came onto any of us, to my knowledge, and he actually ended up getting more friends from it. I think mainly cause before the 'news', most hated him for being a little special, suddenly, they knew why and it was accepted.

Anyway. my two cents, thought I'd share, oh and i screwed your poll by answering wrong.

EDIT:
Oh, and if a guy looks really -really- attractive, I look, even if i consider myself a straight guy.
The gay friend from the army was into cars by the way, maybe the reason we never picked up on it before the pictures was found. I also heard a rumour later that the guy who found and spread the word about the pictures turned out to be with another guy, but that might just be rumours.

When I see G_n_I say that there are no straight guys, I read that as an indictment of the system of labeling sexuality...NOT a denial of the fact that there are men who live their lives only feeling attraction toward women. It's not that the sexuality doesn't exist, it's that the labels we put on sexuality aren't so great.

That makes no sense since "straight" is what people who only feel attraction to the opposite gender are called, and denying that they exist is denying their sexuality.

But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Very much so, indeed.

Einmal ist niemals. I've fucked women, even more than once. Didn't make me straight or bi.

If you were physically attracted to them, then yes it does make you bi. That would be the definition "attracted to both men and women".

That makes no sense since "straight" is what people who only feel attraction to the opposite gender are called, and denying that they exist is denying their sexuality.

I don't think that was the point G_n_I was making.


Very much so, indeed.
Not according to him. Since he seems to agree with my perception of what he was saying, it appears that you have misunderstood him.

If you look at his own statements in this thread, you see that he hasn't actually done anything bisexual or stuck to it.


'Done anything bisexual'? So - sexuality is only what you DO, not what you think, or what arouses or interests you? What a strange perspective.


It's all "maths" and "thought experiments" to him. His ilk is a dime a dozen out there in the clubs (they're mostly girls, fortunately for me but unfortunately for lesbians, but it is vexing when that "bisexual" guy turns out to be one of the "theoretically bi" straight men instead of as is mostly the case a gay man in denial trying to have one foot stuck in mommy's good graces) and there is a reason bisexuals have had a sort of sexual pariah state evolve on them: people don't like being jerked around for what is in the end "maths" and "thought experiments" instead of an actual sexuality and potential to hook up or get something more serious.


Ah. So the problem is - I'm open to the possibilities, but I won't let you tap my sweet ass?


"There are no straight men."


Agreed. 'Straight', like 'gay' is an almost entirely non-functional term.


The poisoning of the well effect again: the "bisexuals" who like to proclaim that theirs is the only sexuality - "there are no straight men! Everyone is bi!"


I didn't say that. I don't really accept the concept of 'bi', either. Pay attention.


most of the time turn out to be what I wrote about earlier and what Grave_n_Idle is. Hence, bisexuality is widely one of the most denied sexualities out there - go out to a club and see what people really think about "bisexuality" and see how many of the "bisexual" girls are so only up to the point of munching actual carpet. That's why it's so ironic for bisexuals to claim that no one is "straight" or "gay", when there's even a pithy motto out there to stand as a testament to how incredulous people have become to bisexuality: "You're either gay, straight or lying."


Yes - some people say stuff like that - and it's a stupid thing to say, no matter if someone 'gay', 'straight' or 'bi' says it.


Einmal ist niemals. I've fucked women, even more than once. Didn't make me straight or bi. Just because you can imagine yourself doing something and actually do it once or twice, doesn't mean it's something you prefer to do and something that you'll keep up.


Again - the problem here might be how you define sexuality.


"There are no straight men." That is denying "various points along that spectrum." The spectrum being bullshit, of course, but I'll grant you it.


We agree then, the spectrum is bullshit. There are no gradual increments, just sexuality. And how we respond to it.

Have you considered that perhaps the wording of what they said is important?

Perhaps... they didn't want gay men checking them out because they knew they'd be considered inferior?

That's never what guys mean when they say 'I'm okay with fags BUT'.

Again - I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Nowhere have I talked about anyone 'denying my sexuality exists'. I certinly didn't claim it upsets me.

You didn't claim it, but then you told me to fuck off over it. Your actions expose your umbrage, just like the lack of your actions when it comes to your supposed "bisexuality" exposes its non-existence.

I do object to your posturing like you are the one arbiter of sexuality - in the face of a growing field of evidence that suggests that 'pure' sexualities are either an artifact, or an anomoloy - and that we are all 'sexual'... neither hetero- nor homo- just sexual. We may find ourselves at different points on the line... maybe even at different points from one day to the next.

Oh, please, if I wanted to listen to such rote bullshit recited I'd ask a 16-year-old oh, so "bisexual" girl for it. They tend to actually be able to expound quite lengthily on it, unfortunately it being the only tongue action they're ever willing to furnish.

Hell, you've discussed on here before, about women you would (or, I seem to recall, have) find attractive in that way - so obviously even you don't buy into the vision you pretend.

Those have been euphemisms. Would I fuck a woman willingly because I am attracted to her sexually? Hell no. Because I don't get sexually attracted to women. I can be intellectually attracted to women, I can even "love" women to an almost familial degree, but do they get my dick hard and would I like to form a romantic relationship with one? Heeeeell no.

Indeed - it seems it is you, not I, that is upset about the denial of 'sexuality'... like that is something that actually defines a person?

"There are no straight men."

The 'fuck off as hard as you can' thing rotates around your seeming prediliction for issuing your little edicts wihtout any wish to be countermanded... but at the same time, you attack others. It's hypocrisy, and I have no time for it.

Of course you have no time for other's hypocrisy, especially when that hypocrisy is only there to expose yours, which consumes all your time.

Or lawyers, they don't have many other options.

Hey! Watch it!

And I am irresistable to gay men, what with my boobies and vagina and all.

If you look at his own statements in this thread, you see that he hasn't actually done anything bisexual or stuck to it.

Why is that a problem?


It's all "maths" and "thought experiments" to him. His ilk is a dime a dozen out there in the clubs (they're mostly girls, fortunately for me but unfortunately for lesbians, but it is vexing when that "bisexual" guy turns out to be one of the "theoretically bi" straight men instead of as is mostly the case a gay man in denial trying to have one foot stuck in mommy's good graces) and there is a reason bisexuals have had a sort of sexual pariah state evolve on them: people don't like being jerked around for what is in the end "maths" and "thought experiments" instead of an actual sexuality and potential to hook up or get something more serious.

I haven't seen G_n_I jerk anybody around regarding his sexual preferences. He's quite honest about the fact that he's yet to meet a man he found sexually attractive. Why should anybody be bothered by his admission that it's possible he could meet a man who was sexually attractive to him?


"There are no straight men."

I think he's addressed this point already.


The poisoning of the well effect again: the "bisexuals" who like to proclaim that theirs is the only sexuality - "there are no straight men! Everyone is bi!" - most of the time turn out to be what I wrote about earlier and what Grave_n_Idle is.

I haven't seen that here.

I agree with the concept of a "spectrum" of sexual orientation, in the sense that I don't see a small, limited number of sexual orientations (i.e. "gay, straight, and bi"). I kind of have to, since I don't buy into the idea that male and female are the only genders, and therefore "straight" or "gay" don't make much sense.

I guess I'm part of the problem, from your perspective.


Hence, bisexuality is widely one of the most denied sexualities out there - go out to a club and see what people really think about "bisexuality" and see how many of the "bisexual" girls are so only up to the point of munching actual carpet.

Yes, people tend to dislike posers. So? Yes, I tend to assume that a young coed wearing the standard Straight Girl clubbing uniform is blowing smoke when she claims to be bisexual, because most of them are. So? That's got buggerall to do with bisexuality, and everything to do with the fact that people who are trolling for ass in a club tend to say whatever they think their audience wants to hear.

How does this make bisexuality the "most deniable" sexual orientation?

That's why it's so ironic for bisexuals to claim that no one is "straight" or "gay", when there's even a pithy motto out there to stand as a testament to how incredulous people have become to bisexuality: "You're either gay, straight or lying."

The fact that people cling to narrow gender roles and narrow definitions of human sexuality is nothing new. Yes, it's a bit sad that this persists even in the gay community (where one would think people might have learned from painful experience), but there you have it. I'm not surprised that gay people fight so hard to maintain what little space they have won for themselves. However, that doesn't automatically make them right in this case.


Einmal ist niemals. I've fucked women, even more than once. Didn't make me straight or bi. Just because you can imagine yourself doing something and actually do it once or twice, doesn't mean it's something you prefer to do and something that you'll keep up.

I didn't claim that it did.


"There are no straight men." That is denying "various points along that spectrum."

No, it is not. It is denying the "straight" label. At least, according to the person who said it.


The spectrum being bullshit, of course, but I'll grant you it.

You do not believe there is a spectrum of human sexuality? (Just want to clarify)


How courteous of you.
It seems that emotions are running high, and I am trying not to contribute to that, because I like this discussion and I don't want to see it shut down by moderators. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as snide or otherwise obnoxious. That's not my intent.

For one thing, men are easier to manipulate.*gets out notebook*
Are you offering advice?

Hey! Watch it!

And I am irresistable to gay men, what with my boobies and vagina and all.

Ummm in my experiance its the other way around. Gay men are irresistable to many women.

If you were physically attracted to them, then yes it does make you bi. That would be the definition "attracted to both men and women".

I wasn't sexually attracted to them. Just like Grave_n_Idle isn't in fact sexually attracted to both genders.

I don't think that was the point G_n_I was making.


Not according to him. Since he seems to agree with my perception of what he was saying, it appears that you have misunderstood him.

No, dont you see? Fass knows all! You dont understand what you mean until Fass tells you.



I dont know why anyones even bothering to argue with him, he just uses personal attacks and then gets all hot and bothered whenever someone gets fed up with him....

I would debate the lack of spectrum - it may be that on a fundamental level everyone is merely sexual but on a mental level there is absolutely a spectrum.

I'd hesitate to state outright that there's no spectrum on a fundamental level either, some people are simply not attracted to the same sex, some are simply not attracted to the opposite sex - whether this can be placed on culture alone over physical make up is debatable and I doubt anyone, certainly here, could state with certainty.

*gets out notebook*
Are you offering advice?

Pfft. As if you'd need it!

Pfft. As if you'd need it!Hey, anything that gets his pants off quicker is fine with me.

Not a real question.

'Straight' and 'gay' are points on the same line. There are no 'straight' men.

Huh?

Saying there are no 'straight' men is basically suggesting that there are also no 'gay' men. What kind of bizarre statement is that to make?

There are definitely men who are only attracted to the opposite sex, and those who are only attracted to the same sex. And then there are those who are attracted to both, in varying degrees. All these sexualities 'exist'.

I would debate the lack of spectrum - it may be that on a fundamental level everyone is merely sexual but on a mental level there is absolutely a spectrum.

I'd hesitate to state outright that there's no spectrum on a fundamental level either, some people are simply not attracted to the same sex, some are simply not attracted to the opposite sex - whether this can be placed on culture alone over physical make up is debatable and I doubt anyone, certainly here, could state with certainty.


Heh what a puluver huh! Argueing wether or not the label gay, straight, or bi actulay means anything. The fact is there is such a thing as sexual preferance, and if we want to talk about it, communicate about it, then we have to label it. Gay, straight or bi, they work as labels, the majority of the world agrees what these labels mean, so really whats the row about?

You didn't claim it, but then you told me to fuck off over it. Your actions expose your umbrage, just like the lack of your actions when it comes to your supposed "bisexuality" exposes its non-existence.


He he. Again - sexuality is entirely defined by where you dump your junk? You have the most curious definitions...

I told you to fuck off because you're a drama queen who thinks he has a special position that renders him above and beyond reproach. You'r not... you're just another bitchy guy.


Oh, please, if I wanted to listen to such rote bullshit recited I'd ask a 16-year-old oh, so "bisexual" girl for it. They tend to actually be able to expound quite lengthily on it, unfortunately it being the only tongue action they're ever willing to furnish.


That seems to really annoy you. The problem doesn't seem to be whether or not one can realisitically claim to be purely 'straight' or 'gay'... you just don't seem to like being termed 'bisexual'.

Which is okay - I don't accept any of the three terms as being anything more than labels, call yourself what you are comfortable with.


Those have been euphemisms. Would I fuck a woman willingly because I am attracted to her sexually? Hell no. Because I don't get sexually attracted to women. I can be intellectually attracted to women, I can even "love" women to an almost familial degree, but do they get my dick hard and would I like to form a romantic relationship with one? Heeeeell no.


I believe you've lied then. I could probably search back through the archives, if I could be bothered... I sem to recall, specifically, a certain musician that you said exactly that about.

But, it's more work than it's worth. So. Yay! point for you!


"There are no straight men."


At least we agree on something.


Of course you have no time for other's hypocrisy, especially when that hypocrisy is only there to expose yours, which consumes all your time.

Again, a little unclear. In what way is my 'hypocrisy' consuming all my time? I lose no sleep over my 'sexuality', and care not in the least about whether peiople conceptualise me as 'gay', 'straight', 'bi'... or any other term. That's their terminology, not mine - and it defines me no more than whether they call me 'white', 'black', 'old', 'young'... or any other label.

Ummm in my experiance its the other way around. Gay men are irresistable to many women.

This is true. And yet it's not generally because we want to fuck them. I don't actually find any of my gay male friends sexually attractive. Intellectually attractive yes. Gay men make the best friends. IMO. They aren't as annoying as women and aren't trying to get into your pants like most guy friends. It puts them in a fantastic position to be extremely objective about your life, and visa versa.

Heh what a puluver huh! Argueing wether or not the label gay, straight, or bi actulay means anything. The fact is there is such a thing as sexual preferance, and if we want to talk about it, communicate about it, then we have to label it. Gay, straight or bi, they work as labels, the majority of the world agrees what these labels mean, so really whats the row about?

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me the "row" is over the fundamental assumption behind those terms. That being, that "sexual preference" should be defined based on the gender of the individuals involved, and that human gender is binary. Since I think both of those assumptions are bunk, the labels that are currently in use are stupid (IMO).

Think about it this way:

What if people were proposing that human sexuality be defined as Blond-o-sexual, Brunette-o-sexual, or Bisexual (meaning those individual who are attracted to both blondes and brunettes)?

I'd wager two major objections would be brought up right away:

1) Not everybody is blonde or brunette!
2) Hair color is a freaking stupid feature on which to break down human sexuality!

Guess what? That's exactly how I feel about the gay/straight definitions.

Heh what a puluver huh! Argueing wether or not the label gay, straight, or bi actulay means anything. The fact is there is such a thing as sexual preferance, and if we want to talk about it, communicate about it, then we have to label it. Gay, straight or bi, they work as labels, the majority of the world agrees what these labels mean, so really whats the row about?

To be fair, I think gay people of both sexes have enough bother with people who simply lie about their sexuality, either out of cowardice or denial, I can imagine it becomes frustrating to hear people airily, on the Internet, talk about these things.

Hey, anything that gets his pants off quicker is fine with me.

Oh, well that part's easy. I was referring more to a long-term relationship kind of psychological manipulation that, if used for evil purposes, can twist and poison a man until all he has left is rage and inevitable death. But I wouldn't expect that to be conscious knowledge, more like an innate skill all women have.

I'm not surprised that gay people fight so hard to maintain what little space they have won for themselves. However, that doesn't automatically make them right in this case.


The irony, of course, is that the battle and claiming of territory is only relevent if you feel the need to fight over the terms. If we all accepted that we're 'sexual' rather than 'hetero-' or 'homo-' anything... and if we could just ignore what other 'sexual' people are doing with their parts (and those of their friends)... the whole debate becomes irrelevent.

This is true. And yet it's not generally because we want to fuck them. I don't actually find any of my gay male friends sexually attractive. Intellectually attractive yes. Gay men make the best friends. IMO. They aren't as annoying as women and aren't trying to get into your pants like most guy friends. It puts them in a fantastic position to be extremely objective about your life, and visa versa.

Yep indeed. My wife has a friend that 'came out' about three years back, and ever since he has(even though he is actualy a friend of mines brother) he has been a little umm odd with me.

I put it down to the fact that we have known him sinc ehe was about 10, and it took him years to come out, and perhaps he is still a little shy around his male freinds, but together with my wife, ohhhh my days, they just don't shut up.

Oh, well that part's easy. I was referring more to a long-term relationship kind of psychological manipulation that, if used for evil purposes, can twist and poison a man until all he has left is rage and inevitable death. But I wouldn't expect that to be conscious knowledge, more like an innate skill all women have.Ah, I see. Should I ask a woman for that knowledge then?

The irony, of course, is that the battle and claiming of territory is only relevent if you feel the need to fight over the terms. If we all accepted that we're 'sexual' rather than 'hetero-' or 'homo-' anything... and if we could just ignore what other 'sexual' people are doing with their parts (and those of their friends)... the whole debate becomes irrelevent.
I dunno.

I was a member of a gay student group in high school, and we had to fight tooth and nail to carve out a tiny little safe space for gay students in that school. The sad reality is that people ARE NOT going to ignore what other people are doing with their parts, and non-hetero people are going to continue facing discrimination and all manner of crap because they're in the minority right now and that's how shit goes down.

When gay people manage to create a safe space, it takes a ton of work. I absolutely sympathize when they fight to hold on to that space. I don't blame them for being "territorial" about maintaining their gay identity, because it took many of them years of pain to assert and defend that identity.

Again, I'm not saying that I think this makes the whole "gay-or-straight" dichotomy valid in the end, but I do understand and empathize with why some gay people would fight to defend it. I don't think they're behaving irrationally or maliciously.

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me the "row" is over the fundamental assumption behind those terms. That being, that "sexual preference" should be defined based on the gender of the individuals involved, and that human gender is binary. Since I think both of those assumptions are bunk, the labels that are currently in use are stupid (IMO).

Think about it this way:

What if people were proposing that human sexuality be defined as Blond-o-sexual, Brunette-o-sexual, or Bisexual (meaning those individual who are attracted to both blondes and brunettes)?

I'd wager two major objections would be brought up right away:

1) Not everybody is blonde or brunette!
2) Hair color is a freaking stupid feature on which to break down human sexuality!

Guess what? That's exactly how I feel about the gay/straight definitions.

Yeah I can see that and I can see how you feel Bottle, but there is such a things as male and female, and everybody is either male or female, and so everybodies, sexual preferance can certianly be set out as male, female, or both, and the labels that denote this are fine.

It seems to me that such a row, is akin to the age old 'You can't label me' type of mindset.

Huh?

Saying there are no 'straight' men is basically suggesting that there are also no 'gay' men.


Absolutely.

What kind of bizarre statement is that to make?

There are definitely men who are only attracted to the opposite sex, and those who are only attracted to the same sex. And then there are those who are attracted to both, in varying degrees. All these sexualities 'exist'.

Varying degrees might be key.

I don't see any reason to believe those perspectives are adamant or concrete, though.

I know girls who are 'gay' for a subbie, but 'straight' for a dom. I've known 'straight' girls that were only 'straight' till the right woman came along... and the same for guys. I know a girl who is 'straight' for 'full' intercourse, but 'gay' for oral.

I find the terms 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' ridiculous - they are no more sensible than trying to name areas of the oceans... you can paint a broad stroke that makes a vague suggestion, but ultimately, in terms of specifics, it's fruitless.

Yeah I can see that and I can see how you feel Bottle, but there is such a things as male and female,

Yes, we have the terms "male" and "female," and they are used to describe supposedly-binary genders. We also have terms like "black" and "white" to describe ethnicity, yet we aren't breaking sexual attraction down based on who is attracted to black people and who is attracted to white people.


and everybody is either male or female,

No, they aren't.


and so everybodies, sexual preferance can certianly be set out as male, female, or both, and the labels that denote this are fine.

Since not everybody is male or female, obviously the gay-straight definitions don't work for all people. I think we should use definitions which work.


It seems to me that such a row, is akin to the age old 'You can't label me' type of mindset.
It's more like, "If you're going to label me, at least do it right."

I find the terms 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' ridiculous - they are no more sensible than trying to name areas of the oceans... you can paint a broad stroke that makes a vague suggestion, but ultimately, in terms of specifics, it's fruitless.

Ridiculous they may be, but you're going to fail if your only response is pretending that the terms don't exist. I think naming areas of oceans can be seen as silly too, but I'm still going to call that big blob to my west the Pacific Ocean. You're doing the equivalent of declaring that there is, in fact, no Pacific Ocean. Except, instead of a blob of water, it's the sexual identity of just about everyone that you're trying to deny.

I understand your position but you'll get nowhere trying to re-define the language.

I dunno.

I was a member of a gay student group in high school, and we had to fight tooth and nail to carve out a tiny little safe space for gay students in that school. The sad reality is that people ARE NOT going to ignore what other people are doing with their parts, and non-hetero people are going to continue facing discrimination and all manner of crap because they're in the minority right now and that's how shit goes down.

When gay people manage to create a safe space, it takes a ton of work. I absolutely sympathize when they fight to hold on to that space. I don't blame them for being "territorial" about maintaining their gay identity, because it took many of them years of pain to assert and defend that identity.

Again, I'm not saying that I think this makes the whole "gay-or-straight" dichotomy valid in the end, but I do understand and empathize with why some gay people would fight to defend it. I don't think they're behaving irrationally or maliciously.

I don't know. I think 'gay identity' is a strange concept that I can't comprehend. I have no 'straight' identity... sexuality is just the people I find attractive sexually... nothing to do with 'who I am'.

Why is that a problem?

Oh, it's not a problem for me. It is a problem to Grave_n_Idle's "bisexuality", though. Again, "thought experiments" aren't reality.

I haven't seen G_n_I jerk anybody around regarding his sexual preferences. He's quite honest about the fact that he's yet to meet a man he found sexually attractive. Why should anybody be bothered by his admission that it's possible he could meet a man who was sexually attractive to him?

That's not what anyone's bothered about - I'm "bothered" (and I use it quite loosely of course, since IRL I ignore his ilk) by him denying other people's sexualities. He can claim he's bisexual all he wants, I'm not ever going to believe it of course now, but once he starts claiming there are no "straight men" or "gay men", then he's started telling other people what they are. Hence the whole point of me telling him what he is - you'd think the ugliness and outright falseness of his behaviour would sink into his head through that, but no. It seems as he really does think that him telling other people what they are is OK, but when someone else tells him as a response, they can "fuck off hard". Because it isn't as he'll fuck'em hard if they're men, but that is the crux of the matter...

I think he's addressed this point already.

With more bullshit, yes.

I haven't seen that here.

"There are no straight men." No matter how many bullshit post-constructions he invents to try to attenuate the meaning of that, that's all they're gonna remain.

I agree with the concept of a "spectrum" of sexual orientation, in the sense that I don't see a small, limited number of sexual orientations (i.e. "gay, straight, and bi"). I kind of have to, since I don't buy into the idea that male and female are the only genders, and therefore "straight" or "gay" don't make much sense.

But would you claim that people who identify as gay or straight, that are 100% within what those labels define, do not exist? If you would, then there isn't any point talking to you, because you would have obviously lost all touch with reality.

I guess I'm part of the problem, from your perspective.

You're an enabler, yes.

Yes, people tend to dislike posers. So? Yes, I tend to assume that a young coed wearing the standard Straight Girl clubbing uniform is blowing smoke when she claims to be bisexual, because most of them are. So? That's got buggerall to do with bisexuality, and everything to do with the fact that people who are trolling for ass in a club tend to say whatever they think their audience wants to hear.

It doesn't have anything to do with bisexuality itself, no - it has to do with the Grave_n_Idle type of bi-supremacist BS.

How does this make bisexuality the "most deniable" sexual orientation?

It makes it the most deniable one, since it so much more often than all the others isn't verisimilar.

The fact that people cling to narrow gender roles and narrow definitions of human sexuality is nothing new. Yes, it's a bit sad that this persists even in the gay community (where one would think people might have learned from painful experience), but there you have it. I'm not surprised that gay people fight so hard to maintain what little space they have won for themselves. However, that doesn't automatically make them right in this case.

And no matter how many "thought experiments" and how much post-modern, pseudo-feminist, "queer" nonsense you can spout about "gender roles" and "fluidity", that won't make you right, either. It'll just mean you either bought a whole lot of nonsense hook, line and sinker, or you misconstrued most of it, the latter being the most probable, with dashes of the former interspersed.

I didn't claim that it did.

But you were trying to use as an argument, which was of course a stillborn endeavour.

No, it is not. It is denying the "straight" label. At least, according to the person who said it.

As I said, a bullshit post-construction that doesn't change even the meaning of it.

You do not believe there is a spectrum of human sexuality?

I do not believe that individuals contain the spectrum. Just because Susy over there likes this, and John over there likes that, doesn't mean that either Susy or John like what the other likes or are capable of liking what the other likes. So, while there may be "a spectrum" that forms once we have individuals describe their sexualities, just like a light spectrum forms from the wavelengths of a group of individual photons dispersed, that doesn't mean that the whole spectrum - or even a tiny swath of it - exists within the individuals, just like every individual photon does not have all the frequencies.

It seems that emotions are running high, and I am trying not to contribute to that, because I like this discussion and I don't want to see it shut down by moderators. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as snide or otherwise obnoxious. That's not my intent.

Sure.

The irony, of course, is that the battle and claiming of territory is only relevent if you feel the need to fight over the terms. If we all accepted that we're 'sexual' rather than 'hetero-' or 'homo-' anything... and if we could just ignore what other 'sexual' people are doing with their parts (and those of their friends)... the whole debate becomes irrelevent.

Yes yes, well when the sexual utopia exists, you'll fit right in.

Right now, gay people are the ones living the 'fight' every day. The nice thing about being bi is you get to blend. We can be as supportive of sexuality 'in general not specific' as we want, but we still get to blend. We can be with the opposite sex, and it doesn't matter that we still declare ourseves to be bi...in a monogomous heterosexual relationship, our 'bi-ness' doesn't matter all that much. When we're with the same sex, we're viewed as gay. Once again, our bi-ness isn't really all that important. Bi's don't stand out as 'another sexuality'. Again, it's due in great part to perception, but that's the reality of it.

We can hope to change things, we can work to change things, but we also have to remain aware of what actually exists, and the conditions in which people live. Frankly, bis should stop expecting the gay community to rally in support of us. They have their own fight, and yeah, we can join forces...but stepping in after the fact is a bit silly. We need to work on our own front, and yeah, gain a bit of credibility ourselves without piggybacking on the 'gay' cause. We should take a cue from transgendered and transsexual activism.

I understand your position but you'll get nowhere trying to re-define the language.
That actually made me chuckle out loud.

Personally, I think it is inevitable that the language in this case will be re-defined. Indeed, human sexuality is one of the areas where language evolves most quickly, because our understanding of sexuality and our acceptance of it can change so rapidly (compared to other concepts). Terms like "gay" and "straight" are relatively new, themselves, so it's particularly silly to hear somebody claiming that these terms are immutable.

I dunno.

I was a member of a gay student group in high school, and we had to fight tooth and nail to carve out a tiny little safe space for gay students in that school. The sad reality is that people ARE NOT going to ignore what other people are doing with their parts, and non-hetero people are going to continue facing discrimination and all manner of crap because they're in the minority right now and that's how shit goes down.

When gay people manage to create a safe space, it takes a ton of work. I absolutely sympathize when they fight to hold on to that space. I don't blame them for being "territorial" about maintaining their gay identity, because it took many of them years of pain to assert and defend that identity.

Again, I'm not saying that I think this makes the whole "gay-or-straight" dichotomy valid in the end, but I do understand and empathize with why some gay people would fight to defend it. I don't think they're behaving irrationally or maliciously.

This.

I got laid with a gay man, so I guess I'm still hot for at least some of them.

And yes, he continued to be gay afterwards. And no, he's not bi.

No, dont you see? Fass knows all! You dont understand what you mean until Fass tells you.


He's even a mind reader!

I wasn't sexually attracted to them. Just like Grave_n_Idle isn't in fact sexually attracted to both genders.

Ridiculous they may be, but you're going to fail if your only response is pretending that the terms don't exist. I think naming areas of oceans can be seen as silly too, but I'm still going to call that big blob to my west the Pacific Ocean. You're doing the equivalent of declaring that there is, in fact, no Pacific Ocean. Except, instead of a blob of water, it's the sexual identity of just about everyone that you're trying to deny.

I understand your position but you'll get nowhere trying to re-define the language.

On the contrary, re-defining the language is a pretty strong tool for change. We think in ways delineated by our language, so the greatest tool for change must be vocabulary - you can only really change anything by making people think differently.

Let's look at that Pacific Ocean for a moment, though... do you think you could isolate every drop of water that had been in the Pacific Ocean? Are they different to 'other' ones? Does the name 'Pacific Ocean' tell you ANYTHING about the nature of the material you are assaying - or is it just an incredibly loose, incredibly inaccurate way of pointing to nothing more than the rough geographic location in which 'something' exists? Does the name tell you a single thing about the 'something'?

I know girls who are 'gay' for a subbie, but 'straight' for a dom. I've known 'straight' girls that were only 'straight' till the right woman came along... and the same for guys. I know a girl who is 'straight' for 'full' intercourse, but 'gay' for oral.

I find the terms 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' ridiculous - they are no more sensible than trying to name areas of the oceans... you can paint a broad stroke that makes a vague suggestion, but ultimately, in terms of specifics, it's fruitless.
Good for you that you find the terms ridiculous. Work on changing the terms. But don't stick your head so far up the ass of academia that you are unable to recognise the reality.

That actually made me chuckle out loud.

Personally, I think it is inevitable that the language in this case will be re-defined.

Well sure, language always changes and evolves. That's a given.

Indeed, human sexuality is one of the areas where language evolves most quickly, because our understanding of sexuality and our acceptance of it can change so rapidly (compared to other concepts). Terms like "gay" and "straight" are relatively new, themselves, so it's particularly silly to hear somebody claiming that these terms are immutable.

The concepts behind them are the concrete bits, not the specific terms. And as long as there are people whose sexual attraction preferences seem to fit within various categories, there will be a name for those categories. If anything I see additional categories becoming possible, but not fewer.

On the contrary, re-defining the language is a pretty strong tool for change. We think in ways delineated by our language, so the greatest tool for change must be vocabulary - you can only really change anything by making people think differently.

You're not making anyone think differently here, though. You're just doing the equivalent of saying "there is no spoon" and wondering why, unlike Neo, the folks here aren't simply going "Whoa" but rather disagreeing with you, and strongly.

Let's look at that Pacific Ocean for a moment, though... do you think you could isolate every drop of water that had been in the Pacific Ocean? Are they different to 'other' ones? Does the name 'Pacific Ocean' tell you ANYTHING about the nature of the material you are assaying - or is it just an incredibly loose, incredibly inaccurate way of pointing to nothing more than the rough geographic location in which 'something' exists? Does the name tell you a single thing about the 'something'?

Of course it's not that specific. It's not rooted in molecular differences between the water of that ocean and any other. So what? Are you honestly saying you don't use the term "Pacific Ocean" yourself on that basis? If not then I fail to see where you're going with this.

I don't know. I think 'gay identity' is a strange concept that I can't comprehend. I have no 'straight' identity... sexuality is just the people I find attractive sexually... nothing to do with 'who I am'.

Ugh.

You don't have to comprehend it for it to exist. Your lack of a 'straight' identity is completely unrelated to the existance of a 'whatever' identity in other people.

This sounds exactly like the people who go on endlessly about how they have no 'cultural or ethnic' identity and therefore can't fathom that it actually exists in other people. I don't care, for example, that someone has no actual ties to a specific culture/nationality/whatever...I do have such ties, they are strong, and they exist for a great many people. They are not inherently 'bad' just because some people claim to have no such attachments.

To reiterate...your lack of understanding doesn't mean that everyone is just like you.

Yes yes, well when the sexual utopia exists, you'll fit right in.

Right now, gay people are the ones living the 'fight' every day. The nice thing about being bi is you get to blend. We can be as supportive of sexuality 'in general not specific' as we want, but we still get to blend. We can be with the opposite sex, and it doesn't matter that we still declare ourseves to be bi...in a monogomous heterosexual relationship, our 'bi-ness' doesn't matter all that much. When we're with the same sex, we're viewed as gay. Once again, our bi-ness isn't really all that important. Bi's don't stand out as 'another sexuality'. Again, it's due in great part to perception, but that's the reality of it.

We can hope to change things, we can work to change things, but we also have to remain aware of what actually exists, and the conditions in which people live. Frankly, bis should stop expecting the gay community to rally in support of us. They have their own fight, and yeah, we can join forces...but stepping in after the fact is a bit silly. We need to work on our own front, and yeah, gain a bit of credibility ourselves without piggybacking on the 'gay' cause. We should take a cue from transgendered and transsexual activism.

I've stood at the door of gay clubs to make sure boys and girls got to taxis safe. When I ran a venue, I ran events specifically for the uni LGBTS to give people safe places to go. I've stood shoulder to shoulder with TVs to physically oppose their persecution. I'm not just a bystander. Not just part of the silent majority. The evil of the inaction of good men, and all that.

I'm not sure why you consider my vision to be some remote utopia. I live it.

All I have is this - I'm straight and married, and I've been hit on by a few gay men. At least I think I was. I might have been hit on by a few straight women, but I have an impossible time telling. But as I understand it...

I was hit on in a bathroom of a bar by a guy...I think. I didn't realize until later that he might have been hitting on me. That must be the height of futility - a gay man hitting on a straight man who isn't aware you're hitting on him.

I'm fucking ugly anyway, so I can't imagine anyone wanting to hit on me.

But would you claim that people who identify as gay or straight, that are 100% within what those labels define, do not exist? If you would, then there isn't any point talking to you, because you would have obviously lost all touch with reality.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear, here.

I don't believe in binary gender. Since I don't believe in binary gender, the idea of "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" as currently in use don't make any sense.

I certainly believe there are individuals who are only attracted to persons who fit within a particular range of physical appearance. As you say, I would have to have lost touch with reality to deny this!

However, since I don't believe that the narrow definitions of male and female are actually accurate reflections of the full range of human gender, I can't honestly apply "gay" or "straight" as they are normally used.


You're an enabler, yes.

Of what?


And no matter how many "thought experiments" and and how much post-modern, pseudo-feminist, "queer" nonsense you can spout about "gender roles" and "fluidity", that won't make you right, either. It'll just mean you either bought a whole lot of nonsense hook, line and sinker, or you misconstrued most of it, the latter being the most probable, with dashes of the former interspersed.

Again, I must be missing something. Are you claiming that gender roles do not exist, or that human sexuality is not fluid?


But you were trying to use as an argument, which was of course a stillborn endeavour.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The ones that are already in there should be plenty, eh? :D


As I said, a bullshit post-construction.

The fact remains that G_n_I was not saying what you appear to have thought he said. Whether or not you agree with him, it's pointless of you to continue claiming he said something that he did not. He's clarified his point enough.


I do not believe that individuals contain the spectrum. Just because Susy over there likes this, and John over there likes that, doesn't mean that either Susy or John like what the other likes or are capable of liking what the other likes. So, while there may be "a spectrum" that forms once we have individuals describe their sexualities, just like a light spectrum forms from the wavelengths of a group of individual photons dispersed, that doesn't mean that the whole spectrum - or even tiny swath of it - exists within the individuals, just like every individual photon does not have all the frequencies.

That is a very elegant way of putting it! I certainly think I agree with you on this, though I do believe that an individual's sexuality CAN change over time (though it may not do so). I believe this because my own sexuality has changed, and since I am a human I therefore conclude that it is possible for a human's sexuality to change, though I've never seen any signs that I can consciously direct my sexuality to change.

At any rate, even if an individual's sexuality could change over time, I still would agree that at any given point the individual has one "wavelength" that they are operating on, and that these can be as distinct from one another as blue is from yellow.

Ugh.

You don't have to comprehend it for it to exist. Your lack of a 'straight' identity is completely unrelated to the existance of a 'whatever' identity in other people.

This sounds exactly like the people who go on endlessly about how they have no 'cultural or ethnic' identity and therefore can't fathom that it actually exists in other people. I don't care, for example, that someone has no actual ties to a specific culture/nationality/whatever...I do have such ties, they are strong, and they exist for a great many people. They are not inherently 'bad' just because some people claim to have no such attachments.

To reiterate...your lack of understanding doesn't mean that everyone is just like you.

You're right on one thing, at least - I am similarly dismissive of specific cultures, nationalities, whatever. My Romani blood 'defines' me no more than my Jewish blood, my Irish no more than my French ancestors. None of them makes a damn bit of difference to what I can think, feel or do. No more than my sexual orientation does.

I've stood at the door of gay clubs to make sure boys and girls got to taxis safe. When I ran a venue, I ran events specifically for the uni LGBTS to give people safe places to go. I've stood shoulder to shoulder with TVs to physically oppose their persecution. I'm not just a bystander. Not just part of the silent majority. The evil of the inaction of good men, and all that.

I'm not sure why you consider my vision to be some remote utopia. I live it.
Awww, nice for you, you're such a good guy to help out.

You are entitled to exactly the amount of respect those actions gain you, and nothing more. Helping out LGBTS people does not make you one of them.

Frankly, it's as insulting as white people who beyond not being 'part of the problem' DEMAND further acceptance from the poor, downtrodden minorities they are supporting.

The odd thing is, once you cross that line into demanding acceptance you stop 'not being part of the problem' and cross once more into that strange land of 'being part of the problem'.

It's good that people support one another. It's good that people outside a certain group fight to create safe spaces for that group, and activiely challenge other outsiders to do the same. But that does not, and never will, make you just like the people you're defending.

Your 'utopia' is a bucket full of festering shit GnI. Your good deeds notwithstanding. At some point, as a supporter, you need to recognise that your role is inherently limited...and the people you are speaking up for have their own voices, and ultimately, your reality is not theres, and never will be.

You're right on one thing, at least - I am similarly dismissive of specific cultures, nationalities, whatever. My Romani blood 'defines' me no more than my Jewish blood, my Irish no more than my French ancestors. None of them makes a damn bit of difference to what I can think, feel or do. No more than my sexual orientation does.

And as I said, good for you.

You are not me.

You are not all people.

It would be nice, if you would drop your colonialist goggles and recognise that.

You're right on one thing, at least - I am similarly dismissive of specific cultures, nationalities, whatever. My Romani blood 'defines' me no more than my Jewish blood, my Irish no more than my French ancestors. None of them makes a damn bit of difference to what I can think, feel or do. No more than my sexual orientation does.

But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist for other people.


My Irish and Italian blood very much is part of who I am, and I maintain very close ties with my Irish heritage.


The way I look at this whole sexuality thing is this. I have a dick. I like to put it in vagina. I like boobs.


Therefore, I am straight.

However, since I don't believe that the narrow definitions of male and female are actually accurate reflections of the full range of human gender, I can't honestly apply "gay" or "straight" as they are normally used.


Are you talking about physically or psychologically, because physically, you can only really be male, female or both, and that is what is important in sexual attraction. If the physical gender does not affect who you are sexually attracted to, and you think other factors are more important, then you are most certainly bisexual, I don't see what the problem is here.

But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist for other people.


My Irish and Italian blood very much is part of who I am, and I maintain very close ties with my Irish heritage.


The way I look at this whole sexuality thing is this. I have a dick. I like to put it in vagina. I like boobs.


Therefore, I am straight.

And honestly, even if you slipped into some hot guy's ass once or twice in your lifetime...your orientation would still be most aligned towards the opposite sex. Rather than claiming the terms are so fluid as to have no meaning, perhaps we should be saying...the terms, in general, work just fine as long as we don't go screaming 'one act of sex with the same sex invalidates your entire life of lusting after the oppostie sex'.

No, they aren't.


What of course they are, unless there is a third gender I am unaware of?

Are you talking about physically or psychologically, because physically, you can only really be male, female or both, and that is what is important in sexual attraction. If the physical gender does not affect who you are sexually attracted to, and you think other factors are more important, then you are most certainly bisexual, I don't see what the problem is here.


Okay, let's figure this out.

You have physical/biological sex. You can have male, female and (not both), intersexed physical sexual characteristics.

Then you have gender. You can be male, female, or someone that exhibits the social characteristics of both, to varying degrees.

Biology and gender are somewhat fluid. But as Fass pointed out, that fluidity or 'spectrum' does not exist in everyone to exactly the same extent. We are not all inherently the same, we are not all inherently able to slide around on either the biological scale, or the gender scale.

So then, defining sexuality can be difficult. Imagine you can have the situation of lusting after a woman (gender) who is a man (biological). If you're a man (gender/biological), does that make you homosexual or heterosexual?

So do we define sexuality by the GENDER we are attracted to, the SEX we are attracted to, or some variation of both?

They're called chips.

But I know exactly what you're getting at.

It's just so egocentric isn't it? "Oh, since they're gay and gay men will hump a dog if they could I bet they think I'm really hot and want to do me because I totally don't have my head up my ass."

It's not like I think all women would take their clothes off and jump on me, so why would I think that about gay men?

definately agree with new stalinberg true... very true and whoever is a homophobic is just stupid because gay people are just like anyone else.
people should not be judged by race, nationality, or orientation

MP5 Y'ALL!!!: mp5: hahahahahahaha!!

Then you have gender. You can be male, female, or someone that exhibits the social characteristics of both, to varying degrees.


Right, but these 'social characteristics' are psychological, or at least not something that affects appearance.


So then, defining sexuality can be difficult. Imagine you can have the situation of lusting after a woman (gender) who is a man (biological). If you're a man (gender/biological), does that make you homosexual or heterosexual?


Well if this person is biologically a man, and so am I, then I would be either straight or gay. His 'gender' is irrelevant, although may make the person less attractive.


So do we define sexuality by the GENDER we are attracted to, the SEX we are attracted to, or some variation of both?

Sex, since pure sexual attraction stems from physical appearance, so that would be all that matters.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear, here.

I don't believe in binary gender. Since I don't believe in binary gender, the idea of "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" as currently in use don't make any sense.

You might as well claim you don't believe in trees, but that you do believe in a flora. Trees exist, just like binary gender exists. That there are plants that aren't trees doesn't mean that trees don't exist, just as little as the existence of people who don't fall into binary genders negates those that do (the majority - making my tree analogy reverse, as your stance is actually equivalent to using the existence of trees to deny the existence of all the other plants). You're using an exception to deny the rule, when in fact all it does is confirm it.

I certainly believe there are individuals who are only attracted to persons who fit within a particular range of physical appearance. As you say, I would have to have lost touch with reality to deny this!

Then why deny there are straight people or people who fit into the binary gender scheme, other than from a profound loss of touch with reality?

However, since I don't believe that the narrow definitions of male and female are actually accurate reflections of the full range of human gender, I can't honestly apply "gay" or "straight" as they are normally used.

I reiterate - you make the equivalent mistake of denying the existence of regularly conjugated verbs just because you found some that are irregularly conjugated.

Of what?

Of the loss touch of touch with reality we were talking about earlier. It's fine and dandy to say "a lot of people like a lot of different things", but isn't fine and dandy to say "all people like all things".

Again, I must be missing something. Are you claiming that gender roles do not exist, or that human sexuality is not fluid?

I am claiming that you have insufficient substantiation to deny the gender roles to those who adhere to them, and that no, in most cases individually human sexuality is not "fluid". And even if it were, denying the existence of people whose sexuality isn't fluid would still be plain old stupid.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The ones that are already in there should be plenty, eh? :D

Oh, they most certainly are numerous, but paradoxically still insufficient to substantiate your argumentation. :p

The fact remains that G_n_I was not saying what you appear to have thought he said. Whether or not you agree with him, it's pointless of you to continue claiming he said something that he did not. He's clarified his point enough.

His clarification didn't change the meaning of what he was saying at all - it served only to distract you from him still sticking to it with another verbiage.

That is a very elegant way of putting it!

I have been told I have a way with words when I wish to.

I certainly think I agree with you on this, though I do believe that an individual's sexuality CAN change over time (though it may not do so). I believe this because my own sexuality has changed, and since I am a human I therefore conclude that it is possible for a human's sexuality to change, though I've never seen any signs that I can consciously direct my sexuality to change.

Of course someone's out there sexuality can change, as you mention most probably not through an act of will, but there are people out there - seemingly the overwhelming majority - for whom that does not occur. Do not use the existence of those for whom it does to deny those for whom it doesn't, or to somehow claim that their "labels" aren't correct - denying the labels is the same thing as denying what the labels denote.

At any rate, even if an individual's sexuality could change over time, I still would agree that at any given point the individual has one "wavelength" that they are operating on, and that these can be as distinct from one another as blue is from yellow.

While what GnI seems to be claiming is that we all have all the wavelengths of the spectrum, and thus those who only have one don't exist, which is patently false.

Right, but these 'social characteristics' are psychological, or at least not something that affects appearance. Uh...it absolutely affects appearance. Doesn't change your genitals, but it does influence how you dress, whether your mannerisms are 'male' or 'female' or a mixture of the two, how you treat other people and so on. These social characteristics have a massive impact on your appearance...how many hardcore het manly men do you see wearing dresses and high heels and fluttering their eyelashes?

I am, at times, a somewhat butch woman...and at other times I'm less butchy. Believe me, my appearance changes accordingly.


Well if this person is biologically a man, and so am I, then I would be either straight or gay. His 'gender' is irrelevant, although may make the person less attractive. That depends on whether you define sexual orientation as gender based or biologically based. Gender is far from irrelevant. If you are attracted to women, and you find a woman who is gendered male...and acts like a man, and you still want her...are you attracted to her tits, or her manliness?



Sex, since pure sexual attraction stems from physical appearance, so that would be all that matters. And as I've pointed out, physical appearance is greatly influence by gender. You would have no idea what actual biological bits were beneath that dress unless you checked, or if they were prominantly displayed. So what are you attracted to when you discuss physical appearance? Genitals, or gendered behaviour?

Wait...what?

We're all individuals?

This is getting ridiculous, how am I going to get you all in uniforms!

:mad:

Well, all my female friends tell me I'm quite attractive (despite the fact that I'm nearly bone-thin, and have no muscle).
And some gay dudes have hit on me before.
I was like "STFU. 'Sides, I'm underage, douche D<"
Lol.
I probably sound really conceited.
:/

While gay people checking you out may be uncomfterable, ANYONE (gay or straight) eavesdropping is far more annoying.

And what the fuck are "crisps", nigga. I want that purple stuff, baby. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UayQTu2kH-U)

Crisps are what you foolishly call chips, which are what we Brits call "French Fries" Geddit?

Crisps are what you foolishly call chips, which are what we Brits call "French Fries" Geddit?

Naa man we call chips chips, crisps crisps, and french fries umm french fries.

Uh...it absolutely affects appearance. Doesn't change your genitals, but it does influence how you dress, whether your mannerisms are 'male' or 'female' or a mixture of the two, how you treat other people and so on. These social characteristics have a massive impact on your appearance...how many hardcore het manly men do you see wearing dresses and high heels and fluttering their eyelashes?


Yeah I know, I put it the wrong way, what I mean is it doesn't change your physical organs and bodily structure.


I am, at times, a somewhat butch woman...and at other times I'm less butchy. Believe me, my appearance changes accordingly.
That depends on whether you define sexual orientation as gender based or biologically based. Gender is far from irrelevant. If you are attracted to women, and you find a woman who is gendered male...and acts like a man, and you still want her...are you attracted to her tits, or her manliness?


But a woman can never really look properly like a man, she can come close, if you are very close appearance wise (and I don't just mean the way you dress and your personality, or if you shave your hair) then it's unlikely that a straight person would find you that attractive, or as attractive. I've seen your pic on one of these threads, and I can easily tell you are a woman even if your head was shaved ;). Things like that can only go so far.


And as I've pointed out, physical appearance is greatly influence by gender. You would have no idea what actual biological bits were beneath that dress unless you checked, or if they were prominantly displayed. So what are you attracted to when you discuss physical appearance? Genitals, or gendered behaviour?

I disagree, I still think it is almost always fairly easy to distinguish male from female, even if you can't see the sexual organs.

While what GnI seems to be claiming is that we all have all the wavelengths of the spectrum, and thus those who only have one don't exist, which is patently false.I'd say the same of gender...some people really are 'all male' or 'all female'.

And why aren't you on MSN bitch?

And why aren't you on MSN bitch?

Avoiding you.

Yeah I know, I put it the wrong way, what I mean is it doesn't change your physical organs and bodily structure. Right, but you don't see the bulk of those physical organs and bodily structure...not in this culture, where most of our body is covered with cloth. We signify our gender in other ways, in the clothes we wear, the hairstyles we use, the scents we put on, the way we walk, talk, and act. These are the things you see, much more prominantly. Trying to figure out if someone who appears to be ambiguously gendered is actually biologically male or female is actually quite difficult, and confusing. We are used to reading a variety of signals and when those signals don't quite match, it throws us for a loop.



But a woman can never really look properly like a man, And I'm sure you'll also say that a man can never really look properly like a woman.

You clearly have no experience with the transgendered/transsexual community. I've seen men who are more convincing women than many women I know. I'd post some links to sites that would have you guess the biological sex of certain individuals, but it's NSFW. Google it yourself.


she can come close, if you are very close appearance wise (and I don't just mean the way you dress and your personality, or if you shave your hair) then it's unlikely that a straight person would find you that attractive, or as attractive. I've seen your pic on one of these threads, and I can easily tell you are a woman even if your head was shaved ;). Things like that can only go so far.
Ah but I'm gendered female. My mannerisms are at the most, butchy female, not male.

And once again...you really lack experience if this is honestly your opinion.


I disagree, I still think it is almost always fairly easy to distinguish male from female, even if you can't see the sexual organs.

Almost always, because for the most part, biology and gender match. But when they don't, don't kid yourself...you don't even notice.

Einmal ist niemals.

Einmal ist keinmal, Schatz.

I think I'm unatractive by anyones standards:p

Me too :( *cries*

I think those kind of people would be thinking that all women are attracted to them also, I don`t think it`s really got anything to do with Sexuality.

I've been hit on by a lot of gay guys and I'm bisexual... soo... I think they do want me.

Skinny, big black rimmed glasses, short nicely-styled hair, clothes that match...
I am a total twinky strag.

Wait...what?

We're all individuals?
I'm not!

Einmal ist keinmal, Schatz.

Meh, du wusstest was ich sagen wollte, aber mich nicht daran erinnern konnte (or "mich daran erinnern nicht konnte"?).

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?
Here's another one of those gender things that just leaves me overcome with a feeling of "Who cares?"

I'll bet there are a couple of overly conceited gay guys out there too.

I'll bet there are a couple of overly conceited gay guys out there too.

They usually have cause to be.

I don't see how being hit on by a guy (if you're a straight guy) is any different than being hit on by a girl you're not attracted to. If the guy hitting on you is at least good-looking, it would be even less awkward.

There are way worse problems, like being a girl who likes girls and having NO IDEA when a chick is hitting on you, because female society is stupidly touchy-feely and women play mind games and never just come out and say things directly. I think it would be a bit of a relief to be a gay guy and actually KNOW whether someone is interested or not.

I wish there was a "meh," option in this poll, because expresses my opinion very well in this case. I don't think I'm much to look at really. Not hideous, but not good-looking enough to be noticed or "checked out". I wouldn't really mind if a dude thought I was attractive. I don't really get what the fuss is about. Most gay guys I know aren't stupid enough to waste their time pointlessly hitting on a straight guy, even if they do think he's good-looking. It's like a straight guy hitting on a lesbian. What's the point? It's an expenditure of time and effort for which there isn't really much of a reward.

I mean, if you say it how it really is, it's a fear of someone you're not attracted to being attracted to you. What are dudes afraid of? That the homosexual is going to grab is junk or rape him or something? It sounds pretty silly.

I have hit on my share of lesbians. The ones I've hit on without knowing they were gay were exceptionally confident and superior conversationalists. I just didn't know they were gay. Best example was at a Christmas party my brother took me two ten years or so ago. I had a two-hour conversation with this woman, and all the time my brother and his friends are walking by, and I could hear a kind of stifled giggle from some of them as they passed. Later, I asked my brother what that was about, and he told me I'd spent most of the party chatting up a lesbian. My reply to his assertion that I was wasting my time was this: if having a rich and meaningful interaction for a couple of hours is wasting time, I hope to waste a lot more. Was she attractive to me? Yes. I like short hair, just like I like long hair or even no hair. I'm also a fan of the smaller chest sizes, though never to any others' exclusion.

It's been said that my slight preference for boyish women says something about me, and it probably does. As of yet, though, I've not met a man that's lit up my libido. On par with GnI, though, I won't say it can't happen. I consider myself straight, and I resent being told I dont exist. Would I go bi? In the right situation with the right people, it's possible. Anything is possible -- I've seen too much to ever black-white sexuality. But I identify with straight-type libido cues. Not the RAGING STRAIGHT, Budweiser-advertisement, alpha male jackoff straight, but straight.

I think Fass' analogy of photons is insanely accurate. Light acts like both waves and particles, and I think sexuality can be determined in both definitive and ambiguous ways.

Ever see a black man? I mean -actually 'black'? No reflected light, nothin'?

There are no 'straight' men.

Come on. Melanin content is analogous to sexuality and sexual preference? Surely you're not serious. At the very least that's a rotten analogy.

If someone who claims they will never be attracted to females is sexist, what is someone who claims they will never be attracted to animals?

Lonely in New Zealand, Scotland or Montana?

That makes no sense since "straight" is what people who only feel attraction to the opposite gender are called, and denying that they exist is denying their sexuality.

I agree, but "only" is a strong word. I have felt attraction to a few men, but never anything approaching something I'd even fantasize about.

Hey! Watch it!

And I am irresistable to gay men, what with my boobies and vagina and all.

When you talk like that, I get all...mooshy...inside.




Say it again!

I know girls who are 'gay' for a subbie, but 'straight' for a dom. I've known 'straight' girls that were only 'straight' till the right woman came along... and the same for guys. I know a girl who is 'straight' for 'full' intercourse, but 'gay' for oral.

I find the terms 'gay', 'straight' and 'bi' ridiculous - they are no more sensible than trying to name areas of the oceans... you can paint a broad stroke that makes a vague suggestion, but ultimately, in terms of specifics, it's fruitless.

I completely understand your point here, as I know some women and men who are much like you describe. It's as though sexuality were a buffet (sorry, Fass, a Smörgåsbord), and they're going through it a la carte for what they want. I don't think that blurs the distinction between drawn-line sexualities so much as builds a mosaic from many choices.

Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock!I thought that was because they were insecure, vapid sots with the emotional maturity of 12 year old girls? not all of us are flakes who hop when the media says "gym bunny"...

I thought that was because they were insecure, vapid sots with the emotional maturity of 12 year old girls?

As opposed to ugly slobs bitter because they can't even get action at a glory hole, or because the glory hole is what they're left with.

not all of us are flakes who hop when the media says "gym bunny"...

No, you're just unattractive.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

If you are right about their unattractiveness, they were prolly just flattering themselves. Give them a break...

If you are right about their unattractiveness,

Let's just put it this way: they had more hair on their backs than they did on their heads, and they weren't bald. *shudders*

they were prolly just flattering themselves. Give them a break...

Why? They've given themselves one, they don't need one from me.

Let's just put it this way: they had more hair on their backs than they did on their heads, and they weren't bald. *shudders*


Not into bears, eh? :p

Not into bears, eh? :p

Oh, actually, muscle bears are the best kind. Chest hair != back hair, though.

And as I said, good for you.

You are not me.

You are not all people.

It would be nice, if you would drop your colonialist goggles and recognise that.

That's pretty cute, actually. Not being an imperialist expansionist is 'colonialist'? Universal acceptance is colonialist? Ignoring the divides others find in race, religion, creed and culture is colonialist?

If that's your perception of 'colonialist', then I thank you - because you make it a compliment.

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

Awww, nice for you, you're such a good guy to help out.


Err... yes, actually. But I haven't done anything we shouldn't all do.


You are entitled to exactly the amount of respect those actions gain you, and nothing more.


I didn't do it for the respect, strangely enough.


Helping out LGBTS people does not make you one of them.


This is true. Just as helping out at a home for abused women doesn't make me one of them. You seem to be perpetuating the same idea that Fass seems so hooked on... which comes across as something along the lines of 'I don't want help from anyone except my kind of people'. I hope I'm wrong. It makes no sense to me.


Frankly, it's as insulting as white people who beyond not being 'part of the problem' DEMAND further acceptance from the poor, downtrodden minorities they are supporting.


Who demanded what from whom? I don't recall mentioning anything about any demands?

When I was (loosely) involved in the Anti-Fascist Action group in Leicester, I was under no delusion that 'fighting' for Indian and Pakistani rights made me one of 'them'. Nor did I care. I certainly didn't demand it. Nor do I 'demand' acceptance from 'gay', 'straight' or 'bi' people... much less, based on my dealings with LGBT communities.

Hell, anyone who really knows me knows I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks.

On the other hand - I do like to be presented accurately - and you're not paying me that courtesy.


The odd thing is, once you cross that line into demanding acceptance you stop 'not being part of the problem' and cross once more into that strange land of 'being part of the problem'.


And still - no idea what youre talking about. I've demanded acceptance to nothing. Hell - if I have to wear 'party colours', I don't want to join.


It's good that people support one another. It's good that people outside a certain group fight to create safe spaces for that group, and activiely challenge other outsiders to do the same. But that does not, and never will, make you just like the people you're defending.


Okay.

I assume there's a point.


Your 'utopia' is a bucket full of festering shit GnI. Your good deeds notwithstanding. At some point, as a supporter, you need to recognise that your role is inherently limited...and the people you are speaking up for have their own voices, and ultimately, your reality is not theres, and never will be.

If my role is 'inherently limited' because I've never had a reach-around... I'm still not sure what your point is. I don't judge you for who you sleep with. I don't think it impacts who you are or what your 'rights' should be... why is that a 'bucket of festering shit'?

I don't see how being hit on by a guy (if you're a straight guy) is any different than being hit on by a girl you're not attracted to. If the guy hitting on you is at least good-looking, it would be even less awkward...
I more or less agree with Ryadn. I am straight guy, but I would find it equally pleasent if either a good-looking guy or gal randomly started flirting with me. I may not get romantic feelings for guys, but I can appreciate when one is hot. I would be flattered either way.

But anyway, as for the original idea of the post, I do not have an illusion of the city's gay population chasing me. I suppose I am in the happy-medium/average-looking category, so theoretically about the same proportion of gay folks are attracted to me as the proportion of female folks. One would have to adjust the numbers, of course, for the fact that most people correctly assume that I am straight. Basically, though, I would expect the same treatment from both sets.

But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist for other people.


But neither does their claim that it does exist, make it so... yes?


My Irish and Italian blood very much is part of who I am, and I maintain very close ties with my Irish heritage.


Okay. And I have learned some Hebrew, and have attended gatherings of Roma. Does that make me any different to who I was beforehand?

My 'blood' is nothing but the genetic heritage. It might make me taller than some, but it doesn't define much at all about what I believe should be my lot in life. Or yours.


Therefore, I am straight.

So - if I'm not so keen on boobs, I'm gay?

You're free to call yourself 'straight', or whatever else makes you comfortable. It's just a label.

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

ANd you discover prison. And then your cellmate discovers you. :)

Okay, let's figure this out.

You have physical/biological sex. You can have male, female and (not both), intersexed physical sexual characteristics.

Then you have gender. You can be male, female, or someone that exhibits the social characteristics of both, to varying degrees.

Biology and gender are somewhat fluid. But as Fass pointed out, that fluidity or 'spectrum' does not exist in everyone to exactly the same extent. We are not all inherently the same, we are not all inherently able to slide around on either the biological scale, or the gender scale.


You confuse 'we do not all' with 'we are not all inherently able'.

Meh, I doubt any man would find me attractive, but eh if a gay man was checking me out, I'd take it as a compliment and move on. Now if a woman was checking me out.... hehehe.

And honestly, even if you slipped into some hot guy's ass once or twice in your lifetime...your orientation would still be most aligned towards the opposite sex.


Most aligned. Yes, maybe.

Of course - you wouldn't KNOW how many times you would have done what 'in your lifetime', until it ended.

Which is one of the things that makes the whole thing so artificial. Mr Straighty McStraight from Straight-town might be incredibly 'straight'. Then, at 54, he meets the right person... you can't know who you are and aren't attracted to until you encounter them - you can only know who you think you might be attracted to.

And - for many, I susect it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I am straight" - so they never have a 'gay' relationship... or they find ways to 'excuse' it to themselves as not 'gay'.


Rather than claiming the terms are so fluid as to have no meaning, perhaps we should be saying...the terms, in general, work just fine as long as we don't go screaming 'one act of sex with the same sex invalidates your entire life of lusting after the oppostie sex'.

The terms aren't so fluid as to have no meaning - they are just meaningless. What they describe is fluid... and the terms are not.

ANd you discover prison. And then your cellmate discovers you. :)

Then we can just call him "Kittenbach". I am surprised this one has made it this far really.

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

Are you that insecure with yourself?

You might as well claim you don't believe in trees, but that you do believe in a flora. Trees exist, just like binary gender exists. That there are plants that aren't trees doesn't mean that trees don't exist, just as little as the existence of people who don't fall into binary genders negates those that do (the majority - making my tree analogy reverse, as your stance is actually equivalent to using the existence of trees to deny the existence of all the other plants). You're using an exception to deny the rule, when in fact all it does is confirm it.


Curious example.

There is a delineation often debated between what is 'alive' and what is not. Viruses, for example, sometimes are seen to drop on one side of that line, and sometimes on the other. The virus itself doesn't give a monkeys about that, of course... it just goes on doing what viruses do. That is because 'terms' don't actually make any damn difference, except as helpful handles for you to grab onto when talking about a thing.

WIth your 'trees' we could argue about what makes a certain type of vegetation intrinsically 'tree-ish'... and we might find (as with so many other blurry areas of the biology of the world) that it is not so clear cut - that there are attributes in some non-tree things that make them seem to be trees, and some non-tree attributes about tree things themselves.

It's even possible that one might find, on continued examination, that 'tree' and 'non-tree' would eventually be meaningless symbols - mere gestures towards two extreme points that are never really apparent in nature - even the most 'tree-like' thing might be found to be un-tree-ish, and vice versa.

To continue calling something a 'tree' under those circumstances would either be an excusable lapse intrinsic in common parlance (not a bad thing, but hardly definitive of the thing), an act of some kind of rebellion against the evidence that trees aren't relly all that tree-y... or just plain wrong.


While what GnI seems to be claiming is that we all have all the wavelengths of the spectrum, and thus those who only have one don't exist, which is patently false.

No - I'm not even claiming a spectrum. I'm claiming a point, perhaps. We are all 'sexual' - we just express it differently.

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

This - I assume - is parody.

But - if not.... post a piccy.

No - I'm not even claiming a spectrum. I'm claiming a point, perhaps. We are all 'sexual' - we just express it differently.

No, you're not claiming a point, since that requires you to have one, but so far all your posts have been pointless fluff, your little tree tl;dr moment being quite indicative.

I really wouldn't like it if anyone told me that I'm attractive, though some people here apparently have said so before. I basically just don't like it when people look at me, because I have to assume that they're making fun of me to be safe. As far as I know a girl has never been attracted to me and the guys who told me they were were lying or deluded. I want to be invisible, my head feels bad now and I have an interview tomorrow and I have to look nice and I'm scared. Hooray for month-and-a-half-so-far long headaches driving me crazy.

You're not. I'm a 'straight' guy, in terms of functionality. But I don't know what my underlying orientation is (if there is such a thing), and I'm not sure anyone can really claim a hard-and-fast set position on the matter with any real conviction... not in a 'this is how it is, how it was, how it shall be' manner, at least. I can live 'straight', without 'being straight' - if that makes any sense. Even if I'm never ever attracted to a man I meet, that still only tells me that I've never met one I'm attracted to - not anything about how I would feel if 'mr right' came along.

This doesn't make much sense to me. It wouldn't make much sense for me to say that even though I've never felt any sort of sexual attraction or feelings at all I would somehow meet one person who would somehow magically change the way I am and always have been and make me feel whatever feelings you sexuals feel, altering everything about me and making me no longer myself as I know myself.

How does one explain asexuals then?

People don't care about us because we don't want to have sex with them. :p

We are all 'sexual'

I'm not. Or I'm an alien. Or something. I don't know, my brain has seemed to want to explode for a while or at least not work right or something. It hurts. That's completely unrelated to this but I'm not feeling coherent.

Curious example.

There is a delineation often debated between what is 'alive' and what is not. Viruses, for example, sometimes are seen to drop on one side of that line, and sometimes on the other. The virus itself doesn't give a monkeys about that, of course... it just goes on doing what viruses do. That is because 'terms' don't actually make any damn difference, except as helpful handles for you to grab onto when talking about a thing.

WIth your 'trees' we could argue about what makes a certain type of vegetation intrinsically 'tree-ish'... and we might find (as with so many other blurry areas of the biology of the world) that it is not so clear cut - that there are attributes in some non-tree things that make them seem to be trees, and some non-tree attributes about tree things themselves.

It's even possible that one might find, on continued examination, that 'tree' and 'non-tree' would eventually be meaningless symbols - mere gestures towards two extreme points that are never really apparent in nature - even the most 'tree-like' thing might be found to be un-tree-ish, and vice versa.

To continue calling something a 'tree' under those circumstances would either be an excusable lapse intrinsic in common parlance (not a bad thing, but hardly definitive of the thing), an act of some kind of rebellion against the evidence that trees aren't relly all that tree-y... or just plain wrong.



No - I'm not even claiming a spectrum. I'm claiming a point, perhaps. We are all 'sexual' - we just express it differently.

I think I see where you're coming from here, and I must say that I agree. When it comes to defining almost anything -- be it a concept, an institution, a type of behavior, etc. -- there is hardly ever an insistence where the subject being defined conforms to every single detail of the label it has been given. For insistence, the United States is often labelled a democratic republic, although one could argue that the way that minorities are disenfranchised in the country makes it partially fail the test of having "free" elections. One might also describe a person that displays typically masculine traits as "masculine", although nearly everyone displays some type of behavior that is associated with the gender archetype that they are not usually identified with at certain times. The point here seems to be that nearly everything in the world with a certain label attached to it conforms to this identification most, but not all, of the time. This is simply due to the fact that most things do not exist at an extreme. Sexuality fits this mold as well; in fact, sexuality is an even more obvious example of this phenomenon. There are many cases of individuals noting sexual attraction towards a member of the gender that they are not normally attracted to.

Considering how many gay men have asked me out, offered me a drink, or asked for a dance at a club, I'm confident that gay men find me attractive. Considering the number of women who've been shocked when I tried to kiss them, I suspect they find me attractive at least in part because they think I'm gay.

I'm not gay, but it doesn't bother me if gay men hit on me or check me out, though I would prefer them to be attractive gay men, if possible.

No, you're not claiming a point, since that requires you to have one, but so far all your posts have been pointless fluff, your little tree tl;dr moment being quite indicative.

"Point.
A point in an axiomatic geometry is an undefined basic term. In analytic geometry, a point in a plane is defined as an ordered pair of two (real) numbers. In higher dimension space, say, Rn, a point is an n-tuple (x1, x2, ..., xn). "

See your spectrum? See a line? See a point?

Mathematical, not semantic.

The fact that you consider your own verbal masturbation worth your time, but lack the basic courtesy to engage a response, says sufficient that I can leave it at that.

The fact that you consider your own verbal masturbation worth your time, but lack the basic courtesy to engage a response, says sufficient that I can leave it at that.

My "verbal masturbation" is adapted to my interlocutor, in that case being Bottle. As you can see, with you, I make it quite short since you're not worth my time. As I said, if I wanted your rote BS, I'd speak to 16-year-old "bisexual" girl.

That's not hitting on someone, though. That's molesting them.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Yes, we have the terms "male" and "female," and they are used to describe supposedly-binary genders. We also have terms like "black" and "white" to describe ethnicity, yet we aren't breaking sexual attraction down based on who is attracted to black people and who is attracted to white people.


No, they aren't.

So is it more like a spectrum where a certain range is traditionally known as "male", another range traditionally referred to as "female" and so forth?

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

you sound hot send some pix plz :fluffle:

First I am straight. however i have friends with many gays male and female normally through Ex Gf's that were Fag Hags. The reason Straight men get uncomfortable with gays is the small minority of the gay population that for what ever reason wants to go for straight males (I am guessing the same reason some straight males often go for lesbians).
To be honest when you average gay guy is hitting on a straight guy (whom the gay guy is unsure about being gay or not) the straight guy is normally unable to tell.

I'm not. Or I'm an alien.

I just wanted to hit this part specifically... when I say we are all 'sexual' - I don't necessary imply that we all have sexual feelings, or we all engage in sexual activities. But - our 'specturm' is often presented as 'bisexual', 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' - and I think the 'bi', 'homo' and 'hetero' parts are basically nonsenses.

There don't seem to be many people that are completely a-sexual... but I don't think that should matter either. Who you do, or how... or even if you choose not to... is a matter for you and anyone you share it with.

I just wanted to hit this part specifically... when I say we are all 'sexual' - I don't necessary imply that we all have sexual feelings, or we all engage in sexual activities. But - our 'specturm' is often presented as 'bisexual', 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' - and I think the 'bi', 'homo' and 'hetero' parts are basically nonsenses.

There don't seem to be many people that are completely a-sexual... but I don't think that should matter either. Who you do, or how... or even if you choose not to... is a matter for you and anyone you share it with.

Then I don't get why the sexual.

My "verbal masturbation" is adapted to my interlocutor, in that case being Bottle. As you can see, with you, I make it quite short since you're not worth my time. As I said, if I wanted your rote BS, I'd speak to 16-year-old "bisexual" girl.

You're just adorable, aren't you?

I already dismissed you, and you're giving me a pouting "I didn't want to talk to you, anyway".

I'd have preferred an honest "I have nothing to bring to the table except an (apparent) desperate desire to claim my homosexuality as some kind of badge-of-pride", but.. well, this works, too.


I finally get it, though. You really DO feel like your sexuality defines you. It doesn't, of course. But now I understand why you won't even enter a real debate about it.

I would happily gouge out the eyes of any fag who checked me out and made a comment about me

If they check me out quietly, theres no problem, but the next time a fag says something, they discover blindness

Look what's back! It's Trolly Mc Trollerson!

Then I don't get why the sexual.

As opposed to the commonly touted variants of 'sexual'. No 'homo', 'hetero', or 'bi'.... not even asexual, really... since I would think you can only be 'asexual' till you aren't... just like any of us are only 'straight', 'gay' ow whatever until we aren't.

We're all related to a point called 'sexuality'. Some of us deal with it in different ways (or not at all), in different directions... but the point around which we move doesn't define us, or limit which way we can go later... or relate to which ways we might have gone before.

As a straight male, I have been hit on - that I have noticed, as I am usually pretty oblivious to attention - by two gay males, two straight females, and one gay female.

Not sure what part of that formulation is most significant.

As to whether I find it uncomfortable or disturbing: no more so than being approached by a female I'm not attracted to.

As opposed to the commonly touted variants of 'sexual'. No 'homo', 'hetero', or 'bi'.... not even asexual, really... since I would think you can only be 'asexual' till you aren't... just like any of us are only 'straight', 'gay' ow whatever until we aren't.

We're all related to a point called 'sexuality'. Some of us deal with it in different ways (or not at all), in different directions... but the point around which we move doesn't define us, or limit which way we can go later... or relate to which ways we might have gone before.

But if I'm only asexual until I'm not then that's like saying that I can't ever be me because I can't ever know who I am because there could be some person with magic powers who can force me to feel unimaginable things about them some day. Or I mean it's like saying that I'm supposed to feel sexual things and then if what you say is true and just seeing some random person could change everything then I'd have to be constantly worried about things that could change me and I'd have to be even more paranoid and make sure that no one ever gets near me and that would be really weird and I wouldn't be able to live at all. I wouldn't be happy if I were forced to have sexual feelings.

I'm me, I don't want to stop being me, that's a scary thought. Being asexual is part of who I am because it explains why I can't understand other people and why other people don't seem to relate to me and how I feel. I feel like I should be able to call myself asexual and people shouldn't stop me just because something could force me to change later.

And if it's possible for me to change then people will be able to justify forcing me into relationships. My mom already wants to do that to change me, if that were really possible I would be forced into relationships and that would be really bad and I would probably have to take drastic actions. So that's really not good and I'm crying, but mostly from other things.

But if I'm only asexual until I'm not then that's like saying that I can't ever be me because I can't ever know who I am because there could be some person with magic powers who can force me to feel unimaginable things about them some day. Or I mean it's like saying that I'm supposed to feel sexual things and then if what you say is true and just seeing some random person could change everything then I'd have to be constantly worried about things that could change me and I'd have to be even more paranoid and make sure that no one ever gets near me and that would be really weird and I wouldn't be able to live at all. I wouldn't be happy if I were forced to have sexual feelings.

I'm me, I don't want to stop being me, that's a scary thought. Being asexual is part of who I am because it explains why I can't understand other people and why other people don't seem to relate to me and how I feel. I feel like I should be able to call myself asexual and people shouldn't stop me just because something could force me to change later.

And if it's possible for me to change then people will be able to justify forcing me into relationships. My mom already wants to do that to change me, if that were really possible I would be forced into relationships and that would be really bad and I would probably have to take drastic actions. So that's really not good and I'm crying, but mostly from other things.

Technically, you're not "asexual," but "nonsexual." Asexual means that you can reproduce on your own, without mating with anyone.

No one can force you to have sexual feelings. Maybe eventually you'll meet up with someone you find yourself sexually attracted to. Being nonsexual is part of who you are now, but the only difference there'd be if you came across someone who awakened sexual feelings in you, would be that you'd be attracted to someone, and could relate to what people were talking about concerning the subject a bit more. Your personality would still be the same, and I bet you'd still worry to the point of being paranoid, too ;)

If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No one can do anything to force it to happen. Well, at least not anything that will work. If it does happen, you'll still be you. That's not to say that it will though. You could go on being nonsexual, my friend's uncle is. While for me a sexless life seems a horror, for someone who didn't feel the desire to have sexual or romantic relations in the first place, there's plenty to life besides that.

But if I'm only asexual until I'm not then that's like saying that I can't ever be me because I can't ever know who I am because there could be some person with magic powers who can force me to feel unimaginable things about them some day.


Not magical powers, and not force. I suspect we were all fairly asexual to start with, and I've known people who seem to have become 'asexual' later in life... or some other sort of sexuality that is functionally asexual.

I don't think you're defined by who you find attractive - if anyone. It certainly doesn't tell me who I am, to know who floats my boat.


Or I mean it's like saying that I'm supposed to feel sexual things and then if what you say is true and just seeing some random person could change everything then I'd have to be constantly worried about things that could change me and I'd have to be even more paranoid and make sure that no one ever gets near me and that would be really weird and I wouldn't be able to live at all.


That could happen anyway, of course - but worrying seems illogical. If you never experience (that kind of) 'sexuality', worrygained you nothing. If you do... worry won't help. Indeed (no categorical answer of course), if you suddenly find yourself in that situation, you probablty won't want to worry.


I wouldn't be happy if I were forced to have sexual feelings.


I'm not sure that's possible.


I'm me, I don't want to stop being me, that's a scary thought.


Why would you stop being you?

Some people have very high sex drives. In my teens and twenties I needed sex five times a day. In my thirties, my libido dropped to maybe once a day. At times - it's been even less, and I can go days on end with no sexual feelings, no attractions. I was still 'me' at all those points - my romantic and sexual situation doesn't define me.


Being asexual is part of who I am because it explains why I can't understand other people and why other people don't seem to relate to me and how I feel.


In all probability - while that is a functional answer, it's correlation, not cause. Why you "can't understand other people" and why they don't "relate to" you are probably 'symptoms' of the same cause as the 'asexuality'.... the one likely doesn't 'cause' the other.


I feel like I should be able to call myself asexual and people shouldn't stop me just because something could force me to change later.


You should be able to call yourself asexual. People shouldn't stop you. You could change later, maybe. And that's my problem with the terminology - it's like 'abstinence' as a form of birthcontrol, it's only relevent till it's not.


And if it's possible for me to change then people will be able to justify forcing me into relationships. My mom already wants to do that to change me, if that were really possible I would be forced into relationships and that would be really bad and I would probably have to take drastic actions. So that's really not good and I'm crying, but mostly from other things.

If you thought you were 'gay', would your mother compel you to have sex with men? That's about parallel to the notion of forcing you into relationships to try to change you. And - of course - it's entirely counterproductive.

Good luck tomorrow. Hope your head feels better.

http://www.superdickery.com/images/seduction/tuska_panel.jpg

Technically, you're not "asexual," but "nonsexual." Asexual means that you can reproduce on your own, without mating with anyone.

No one can force you to have sexual feelings. Maybe eventually you'll meet up with someone you find yourself sexually attracted to. Being nonsexual is part of who you are now, but the only difference there'd be if you came across someone who awakened sexual feelings in you, would be that you'd be attracted to someone, and could relate to what people were talking about concerning the subject a bit more. Your personality would still be the same, and I bet you'd still worry to the point of being paranoid, too ;)

If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No one can do anything to force it to happen. Well, at least not anything that will work. If it does happen, you'll still be you. That's not to say that it will though. You could go on being nonsexual, my friend's uncle is. While for me a sexless life seems a horror, for someone who didn't feel the desire to have sexual or romantic relations in the first place, there's plenty to life besides that.

Nonsexual is perhaps a better word for it, it's just that asexual is the word that the few studies about it have used as well as the word that the asexual community uses to describe itself.

I just would feel like if that changed than nature is being capricious and deciding to mess with me by changing something like that suddenly. So I would feel like it was forcing me to feel something I don't want to feel. And if I'm ever attracted to someone people will say that I was never asexual in the first place and I was just a liar, but that's not true, it's part of who I am now and it's part of what has shaped my personality regardless of if it changes or not, even though I don't think it will change.

I'll still be me but I'll be messed up, I won't know how to relate to anything anymore. Everything will have to change because I'd have to transform into a normal person and normal people usually seem to be mean and vain and stuff.

But thanks for your post, a lot of it made sense and helped me feel better. I just feel really bad right now from everything and everything seems worse. *hugs*

Not magical powers, and not force. I suspect we were all fairly asexual to start with, and I've known people who seem to have become 'asexual' later in life... or some other sort of sexuality that is functionally asexual.

What could change it if not magical powers or force? I don't understand how it could change, I don't even know how I would recognize it if I felt anything.


I don't think you're defined by who you find attractive - if anyone. It certainly doesn't tell me who I am, to know who floats my boat.

I don't think it defines me but it's an important factor that's affected my perspectives on lots of things.


That could happen anyway, of course - but worrying seems illogical. If you never experience (that kind of) 'sexuality', worrygained you nothing. If you do... worry won't help. Indeed (no categorical answer of course), if you suddenly find yourself in that situation, you probablty won't want to worry.

I'm just so worried about everything right now, I can never seem to stop worrying about stuff.

I'm not sure that's possible.

If it changed I would feel like some random thing is forcing me to change. That's just the way it seems.

Why would you stop being you?

Some people have very high sex drives. In my teens and twenties I needed sex five times a day. In my thirties, my libido dropped to maybe once a day. At times - it's been even less, and I can go days on end with no sexual feelings, no attractions. I was still 'me' at all those points - my romantic and sexual situation doesn't define me.

This makes more sense, it's just part of what's developed me into me and without that it would feel weird. Everything would seem different. I don't want to change.

In all probability - while that is a functional answer, it's correlation, not cause. Why you "can't understand other people" and why they don't "relate to" you are probably 'symptoms' of the same cause as the 'asexuality'.... the one likely doesn't 'cause' the other.

But what could the cause be?

You should be able to call yourself asexual. People shouldn't stop you. You could change later, maybe. And that's my problem with the terminology - it's like 'abstinence' as a form of birthcontrol, it's only relevent till it's not.

This makes a little bit more sense to me now than before.

If you thought you were 'gay', would your mother compel you to have sex with men? That's about parallel to the notion of forcing you into relationships to try to change you. And - of course - it's entirely counterproductive.

She told me once that she'd be okay with me being a lesbian but just doesn't want me to be alone, but I don't know. I don't think she really would force me into relationships but she always talks about how she wants to find "a good Catholic boy" for me, always talks about when I get married, etc.

Good luck tomorrow. Hope your head feels better.

Thanks. :) Menstrual cramps and headaches and tests and being assigned several projects today and worrying about the interview and everything are all really not good for my sanity...

Nonsexual is perhaps a better word for it, it's just that asexual is the word that the few studies about it have used as well as the word that the asexual community uses to describe itself.
Well, whatever word you want to use to describe it, I know what you mean.

I just would feel like if that changed than nature is being capricious and deciding to mess with me by changing something like that suddenly. So I would feel like it was forcing me to feel something I don't want to feel. And if I'm ever attracted to someone people will say that I was never asexual in the first place and I was just a liar, but that's not true, it's part of who I am now and it's part of what has shaped my personality regardless of if it changes or not, even though I don't think it will change.
I don't think it will change. I think of who am more as the values I hold than what gender I'm attracted to, or if I'm attracted to anyone. And if the situation did change, I doubt it would be suddenly. Many things shaped our personality. I was once Catholic. I am not Catholic any longer, but it definitely had an effect on my personality. People change, they grow, they find out new things about themselves. You may never be attracted to anyone, which is fine, or someone may come along that you over time develop sexual/romantic feelings for, which is also fine. You're still you, and even if that does happen, you still would have been nonsexual in the period of your life before this hypothetical event, as during that time you were not sexually attracted to anyone.

I wouldn't think that you're a liar, and anyone who would, well, their opinion wouldn't be worth considering, as they'd just be judging you with very limited knowledge and large biases, quite unfairly.

I'll still be me but I'll be messed up, I won't know how to relate to anything anymore. Everything will have to change because I'd have to transform into a normal person and normal people usually seem to be mean and vain and stuff.
It would probably be a gradual change. You'd learn as you went along. And just being sexual doesn't make one "normal." You could be sexual without being a boring jerk. My ladyfriend is sexual, but she isn't mean or vain. I think you're confusing the fact that most people are sexual with the fact that most people are jackasses. It is not a causal relationship, it just so happens that both traits are possessed by most of the human population. I know plenty of people who are dicks, but my best friends are not mean or vain, and my two best friends at college happen to be in a sexual relationship. Both are some of the best people one could ever meet. I don't think you'll be messed up. If your situation regarding your sexuality, or rather lack thereof, changed, I think you could handle it just fine. Just keep being you, but don't be afraid of your own feelings, they can't force you to be someone you're not, as they come from you. No one can force you to feel any certain way, either.

But thanks for your post, a lot of it made sense and helped me feel better. I just feel really bad right now from everything and everything seems worse. *hugs*
*hugs back* :) Glad I actually helped someone for a change, lol. I hope things get easier soon, what with people not accepting the way you feel or don't and stuff. People are difficult at times and often have trouble seeing something that, though patently obvious, doesn't fit with their world view. It takes them a while a lot of the time.

I think I'm unattractive, but a lot of girls don't think so. Meh. Don't know about gay guys, I don't know any.

If only we could get those who wish to subjugate the rights of other humans to divide themselves up and work against one another as much as those of us who wish to respect the rights of humans do, it would be a fair fight.

As far as whether or not I'm attractive to gay men (as if all gay men are looking for the same thing), I get hit on much more often by gay men. I've often lamented not being gay for the sole reason that I despise approaching people and women rarely approach me and gay men approach me all the time.

But then, I don't actually ask them if they're gay, so maybe I just do well with bisexual men.

http://www.superdickery.com/images/seduction/tuska_panel.jpg

One has to wonder if those really aren't intentional.

It's funny that I read this thread tonight. I just got back from dinner where I found out that not only am I gay, but because I don't stare and drool and giant fake breasts, I'm evidence that gay men hate nice breasts.

Where is the "I don't give a shit" option?

I don't much care for gays.

I got hit on by gay men 5 times or so last year. So while not the supreme idolisation of gay desirability, there is at least some attractiveness there.

Right, but you don't see the bulk of those physical organs and bodily structure...not in this culture, where most of our body is covered with cloth. We signify our gender in other ways, in the clothes we wear, the hairstyles we use, the scents we put on, the way we walk, talk, and act. These are the things you see, much more prominantly. Trying to figure out if someone who appears to be ambiguously gendered is actually biologically male or female is actually quite difficult, and confusing. We are used to reading a variety of signals and when those signals don't quite match, it throws us for a loop.


But you notice the subtle differences, in the face or the cheek bones or the shoulders for instance. I've only seen one person who I genuinely couldn't tell with, but all that tells me is just that he's very unattractive to a straight woman or gay man, not that sexuality is fluid.


And I'm sure you'll also say that a man can never really look properly like a woman.


Only in very rare exceptions.


You clearly have no experience with the transgendered/transsexual community. I've seen men who are more convincing women than many women I know. I'd post some links to sites that would have you guess the biological sex of certain individuals, but it's NSFW. Google it yourself.


I have plenty of experience, I live in Brighton, that's the gay and transgendered capital of the UK, and again I've only seen one case of what you're talking about.


Ah but I'm gendered female. My mannerisms are at the most, butchy female, not male.

And once again...you really lack experience if this is honestly your opinion.

Almost always, because for the most part, biology and gender match. But when they don't, don't kid yourself...you don't even notice.

Well in the case that a man is sexually attracted to a woman who looks exactly like a man, then that basically makes him gay or bisexual.

Well, whatever word you want to use to describe it, I know what you mean.


I don't think it will change. I think of who am more as the values I hold than what gender I'm attracted to, or if I'm attracted to anyone. And if the situation did change, I doubt it would be suddenly. Many things shaped our personality. I was once Catholic. I am not Catholic any longer, but it definitely had an effect on my personality. People change, they grow, they find out new things about themselves. You may never be attracted to anyone, which is fine, or someone may come along that you over time develop sexual/romantic feelings for, which is also fine. You're still you, and even if that does happen, you still would have been nonsexual in the period of your life before this hypothetical event, as during that time you were not sexually attracted to anyone.

I wouldn't think that you're a liar, and anyone who would, well, their opinion wouldn't be worth considering, as they'd just be judging you with very limited knowledge and large biases, quite unfairly.


It would probably be a gradual change. You'd learn as you went along. And just being sexual doesn't make one "normal." You could be sexual without being a boring jerk. My ladyfriend is sexual, but she isn't mean or vain. I think you're confusing the fact that most people are sexual with the fact that most people are jackasses. It is not a causal relationship, it just so happens that both traits are possessed by most of the human population. I know plenty of people who are dicks, but my best friends are not mean or vain, and my two best friends at college happen to be in a sexual relationship. Both are some of the best people one could ever meet. I don't think you'll be messed up. If your situation regarding your sexuality, or rather lack thereof, changed, I think you could handle it just fine. Just keep being you, but don't be afraid of your own feelings, they can't force you to be someone you're not, as they come from you. No one can force you to feel any certain way, either.


*hugs back* :) Glad I actually helped someone for a change, lol. I hope things get easier soon, what with people not accepting the way you feel or don't and stuff. People are difficult at times and often have trouble seeing something that, though patently obvious, doesn't fit with their world view. It takes them a while a lot of the time.

Thanks again, this post made sense to me. I feel a little bit better this morning, too.

That's pretty cute, actually. Not being an imperialist expansionist is 'colonialist'? Universal acceptance is colonialist? Ignoring the divides others find in race, religion, creed and culture is colonialist?

If that's your perception of 'colonialist', then I thank you - because you make it a compliment.

Your 'universal acceptance' is no such thing, and it is that I wish you to see. You've essentially stated, 'well I'm like this, therefore everyone is like this'. That you actually believe this to be acceptance in any form, universal or not is baffling in the extreme.

You can sing kumbya all you want, claim that because you feel no connection to a 'sexual orientation' (despite your claims to be bisexual), or ethnicity, or what have you....that's fine. Good. But when you further go on to tell everyone else that they must do as you do, it's fucking disgusting.

I am not going to applaud you for 'helping out the fags'. As I said...you get the respect due to you and nothing more for that. When you turn around and say "all right then, I've helped you out, now act like this, or believe this, or 'you're not really gay'", your credibility is lost. You are in fact behaving as poorly as the people who wish homosexuals would just 'tone it down and not be so obvious about it'.

You don't get to deny people their sexual orientation/ethnicity/etc and then go around claiming 'look at me! I'm all universally accepting, please, shower me with the praise I so deserve'.

Where is the "I don't give a shit" option?

I don't much care for gays.Because no gay would give a shit for you?

This is true. Just as helping out at a home for abused women doesn't make me one of them. You seem to be perpetuating the same idea that Fass seems so hooked on... which comes across as something along the lines of 'I don't want help from anyone except my kind of people'. I hope I'm wrong. It makes no sense to me. False. What is being said to you is that you don't get to make demands of a certain group simply because you have 'helped them out'. And that is what you are doing. You are demanding they discard notions of 'straight' 'het' or whatever, because you don't feel those terms are inclusive enough. You want them to use more vague 'inclusive' terms. And frankly, you don't get to make those demands and call it inclusion, when it specifically denies people their sexuality.



Who demanded what from whom? I don't recall mentioning anything about any demands? You have presented your ideal version of 'how life should be' as fact. You have denied that there are straight, or gay people. Your demand is that we accept your philosophy because it is 'true'.


If my role is 'inherently limited' because I've never had a reach-around... I'm still not sure what your point is. I don't judge you for who you sleep with. I don't think it impacts who you are or what your 'rights' should be... why is that a 'bucket of festering shit'?
Your role is limited in that you don’t get to define other people without their consent. And in saying there are no gay or straight people, you are doing just that.

You confuse 'we do not all' with 'we are not all inherently able'.

You confuse yourself with an authority on the matter with whom we should all agree unconditionally.

Claiming that 'we do not' even though 'we are inherently able' to change our gender, or our sexuality is as fucking assinine as people who say you should just choose to not be gay please thanks. And yes, that is what you are saying. This theory of yours, that we are all inherently able to float around in a sea of ambiguous sexuality is unsubstantiated, and offensive. That we are not all as cool as you with our ambiguous attractions is implied. That we could actually be as cool as you but choose not to is as much as stated.

Boy, you're doing wonders for 'the cause'.

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?
Don't Know, Don't Care.

Claiming that 'we do not' even though 'we are inherently able' to change our gender, or our sexuality...
Can we all agree that even if Grave-n-Idle can't actually HAVE babies, he can have the RIGHT to have babies?

Can we all agree that even if Grave-n-Idle can't actually HAVE babies, he can have the RIGHT to have babies?

But where will the fetus gestate?!

But where will the fetus gestate?!

In the excavatio rectovesicalis?

Can we all agree that even if Grave-n-Idle can't actually HAVE babies, he can have the RIGHT to have babies?

I think his position is more, "Everyone CAN have babies, not everyone CHOOSES to have babies. What? That's not possible? Quite shitting on my universal acceptance!"

In the excavatio rectovesicalis?

Only if you're Arnie.

Only if you're Arnie.

And GnI certainly isn't as much man as Arnie to be able to handle that, true.

In the excavatio rectovesicalis?

hey fass, if you ever get the chance, look up "The Cosby Show".

they did an episode where, due to contaminated water, the men got pregnant.

Neighbor: "and when I held him, to think that a life was created within my body... it's truly a miracle..."
Theo:"Did it hurt?"
Neighbor: "Did... It... HURT? Didn't you hear me screaming in there?! and whenever I think about where it came out from!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!"

hey fass, if you ever get the chance, look up "The Cosby Show".

Ugh, I can't stand that show. So wholesome in the USA sense, and thus offensive to my morals. I wanted to kick that Rudy in her stupid, "cute" face...

"Yo that fag just checked me out. I totally know he did, because he's a fag."

Probably not very.

Ugh, I can't stand that show. So wholesome in the USA sense, and thus offensive to my morals. I wanted to kick that Rudy in her stupid, "cute" face...

;)
hence the focus on that one episode. :p

Never been hit on, full stop. So I doubt the gays are interested. I'd take any compliment I could get, however. :p After all, if women are often attracted to gays (as conventional wisdom seems to have it) and gays were attracted to me, well, that'd be worth *something* at least vicariously, eh? :)