NationStates Jolt Archive

Bwhahah you mean you can't?

Not at all. I think it's a nonsense phrase. I think it could be useful if it applied to something that could be empirically verified (for example, that technique I emntioned earlier, whereby actual sexual response was used to compare/contrast the claimed sexualities of paedophiles), but that - otherwise - it is simply a cute identifier with no real intrinsic value.

The 'majority' here argues against me using a variety of definitions, apparently - ranging from Fass's "you're only gay if you fuck" (which apprently has special exceptions for if you also fuck the opposite sex, sometimes), to Barr's "acting gay".

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with the opposite sex, that does not make them heterosexual. The physical ability to do something does not equal their sexuality.

What if they were actually attracted to that person? Are they still gay? What percentage of the time do you have to be attracted only to one sex to be either gay or straight? What if you are a "straight" man attracted to someone who is transgendered? Does that alter the categorization?

I think, although I'm not sure, that what GnI is getting at here is similar to the point you are making. Sexuality doesn't fit into neat little boxes.

Where he goes farther than me is to suggest, then, that the labels are completely useless. I do think they certainly can have a limited use, but they fall far short of truly describing human sexuality.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with no one at all, that again does not mean they're not gay.

Indeed!

So it is attraction that matters.

You then entirely miss those who exclusively sleep with the opposite sex, who will tell you they're gay, will act gay and are, in fact, to no one but your own surprise, gay.

As you say above, a gay man who has sex with a woman is not necessarily no longer gay. He may have engaged in the physical act without really being attracted to her.

Likewise, choosing to exclusively sleep with members of the same sex does not necessarily make one gay. She may, in fact, be attracted to members of the opposite sex and not act on it.

And, here again we run into the question of what exactly defines someone as gay or straight? Do they have to exclusively be attracted to only one sex? Or is there some percentage they must meet?

Well, actually, my point was that, if some day I am attracted to a man, I think we'd both agree that I was wrong. This lends itself to the point that regardless of how one self-identifies, there is the potential that one is incorrect.

I happen to not agree with GnI here, but I think it's gotten so petty that who can tell who agrees with what. It's not like a reasoned debate is occurring. Not even in the nuances.

As far as the self-identification and being wrong is concerned, however, my self-identification is based on all the evidence I have. As such is it is both entirely reasonable and entirely accurate within the bounds of our human limitations. I don't require any designation to be infallible, why would I require it of the terms for sexuality. GnI has not demonstrated in any way a likelihood that people who are and will be exclusively attracted to men throughout their lives do not exist and likewise for women.

I think this is the point though, people can theorise that they'll meet this magic bullet of a man, - as a male, I'm using male as an example - the person that will make them go 'oh, seems I'm attracted to both sexes" but for many people, that simply never happens. There's no 'magic man'.

Now, even where it's really a case where, possibly many people, are simply against the idea of having sex with their own sex due to cultural pressures, that they simpy won't admit it to themselves and GnI's test might show that, it doesn't detract from the fact that there's people who are only attracted to their own sex, and people who are only attracted to the opposite sex.

Many of us can theorise the middle - and I'm getting deja vu here - but it doesn't mean we can speak for those who are quite certain they are exclusive.

Again, perhaps the 'magic man' theory comes into play, they just haven't met the right person but, really, wouldn't that apply to all people, I am not attracted to any sex until I meet the right person?

No, I'm attracted to many people of the opposite sex, many different females and yet in all the men I've ever met, not one has been that 'magic man'.

It's a theory, fine, we can discuss the possibility but it's just not reality.

Naturally, since I exist, no matter crazed claims to the contrary. :)

Well, the "What What in the Butt" guy is pretty cool. You're competing with him.

My words when I made you write them. My words when you repeated over and over and over. My words when you still repeat me. And I did it all by somehow clandestinely making you do that! How dishonest of me. How delusional of you.


This probably makes sense in Swedish.


As I said, you have no argument, and something you don't have cannot be dealt with.


You are mistaking "I can't argue with it" with "it doesn't exist".


Your integrity as another ting that's non-existent.


Another ad hominem?

Seriously - is this how they do debate where you come from?


And thus you claim that they don't exist, just like you wrote from the beginning.


You really DO think that saying the term is meaningless makes you disappear? Do you think cameras take a little bit of your soul, too?


You're the only one here who thinks there are no straight or gay men. You and the kooks in your "sources". I know that no matter the BS you spout, gay and straight men will exist.


Of course they will still exist. They just won't always be called 'gay' or 'straight'. And their sexualities will not always be so easily summed up as a binary system suggests.

Seriously - this really isn't that hard a concept to embrace.


More delusions from you - "affordable" is another word for "crap only fit for the poor".

Fairly hardwearing for their price, so not crap... but yes - they didn't cost much, because I am poor. I'm not sure how this affects the boots, myself, or my arguement.

Your cheapshot was cheaper than my boots, by far.

Can I offer something here to both of you? I missed the "key operator" too, when I first read it. The purpose of language is to communicate. Perhaps, you should make an effort to do so more clearly. I can appreciate that you might find the current discussion frustrating, but there is no value to confusing the issue with strangely formed sentences.

Taken in the spirit in which it was intended.

What if they were actually attracted to that person? Are they still gay? What percentage of the time do you have to be attracted only to one sex to be either gay or straight? What if you are a "straight" man attracted to someone who is transgendered? Does that alter the categorization?

I think, although I'm not sure, that what GnI is getting at here is similar to the point you are making. Sexuality doesn't fit into neat little boxes.

Where he goes farther than me is to suggest, then, that the labels are completely useless. I do think they certainly can have a limited use, but they fall far short of truly describing human sexuality.

Indeed!

So it is attraction that matters.

As you say above, a gay man who has sex with a woman is not necessarily no longer gay. He may have engaged in the physical act without really being attracted to her.

Likewise, choosing to exclusively sleep with members of the same sex does not necessarily make one gay. She may, in fact, be attracted to members of the opposite sex and not act on it.

And, here again we run into the question of what exactly defines someone as gay or straight? Do they have to exclusively be attracted to only one sex? Or is there some percentage they must meet?

Amm...I see your point.

To be absolutely honest, I'd hesitate to exactly define 'gay', in a nod to an earlier posting by you, I'd say it's a vaguely - not really the right word - defined term.

If GnI's argument is simply to say that there's no exact meaning in the word gay then fine, but that's not what he's saying, he's saying it means nothing when it certainly does mean something, and to a great many people - he's also saying that no one is completely gay, that they're simply denying the truth to themselves.

Actually, I've had some difficulty in deciding which term to use - heterosexual or gay or any other - we use these terms to define, people use these words to define themselves.

The argument is that it's simply wrong to loftily announce that there's no such thing as gay people - if you want the truth of it, just ask a gay person.

Taken in the spirit in which it was intended.

Help me out here then, what's a 'key operator'? I'm genuinely ignorant as to the meaning of the term and I'm still missing it overall although it's clearly there given Joc's noticed it as well.

I think this is the point though, people can theorise that they'll meet this magic bullet of a man, - as a male, I'm using male as an example - the person that will make them go 'oh, seems I'm attracted to both sexes"


Yes.


Now, even where it's really a case where, possibly many people, are simply against the idea of having sex with their own sex due to cultural pressures, that they simpy won't admit it to themselves and GnI's test might show that,


Yes.


it doesn't detract from the fact that there's people who are only attracted to their own sex, and people who are only attracted to the opposite sex.


Are there?

How do you KNOW?


Again, perhaps the 'magic man' theory comes into play, they just haven't met the right person but, really, wouldn't that apply to all people, I am not attracted to any sex until I meet the right person?


Yes.


No, I'm attracted to many people of the opposite sex, many different females


Not all, though? You aren't triggered purely by the presence of opposing genitals?

No - you respond to a lot of individuals.


...and yet in all the men I've ever met, not one has been that 'magic man'.


Yet?


It's a theory, fine, we can discuss the possibility but it's just not reality.

Why?

Seriously - this is quite some headway - WHY is the theory categorically not reality?

Originally Posted by Barringtonia
...and yet in all the men I've ever met, not one has been that 'magic man'.


Yet?

Give over, theoretically the sun might not appear tomorrow - care to wager $5?

Who are you to speak for others when they categorically tell you how they feel, who they're attracted to?

Even if it's a purely cultural construct, which the evidence seems to be weighing against, people are still attracted to the same sex exclusively.

How deep do you have to define the term before you're simply playing with theory, with words, while denying the knowledge of a good portion of society?

Fun for you, life for others.

Amm...I see your point.

To be absolutely honest, I'd hesitate to exactly define 'gay', in a nod to an earlier posting by you, I'd say it's a vaguely - not really the right word - defined term.

If GnI's argument is simply to say that there's no exact meaning in the word gay then fine, but that's not what he's saying, he's saying it means nothing when it certainly does mean something,


It means something to those who self-define. It means something to those who use it as a descriptor.

But does it EMPIRICALLY mean something?


..and to a great many people - he's also saying that no one is completely gay, that they're simply denying the truth to themselves.


No - I'm saying even we ourselves can not really know our orientation, and that it seems to be a far less concrete thing than any terminology suggests.

Maybe there are people who really do exist on the absolute extremes, who have NEVER been attracted to someone of the relevent genders, and never will - not even slightly... but that seems a far greater stretch than the idea that we are all somewhat plastic, even if we never act on, or are even aware of, our own limits.


The argument is that it's simply wrong to loftily announce that there's no such thing as gay people - if you want the truth of it, just ask a gay person.

And they'll tell you what? How they self-identify?

So it is attraction that matters.


It's a matter of linguistics. To some people, "gay" denotes a certain lifestyle, regardless of sexual orientation. In that respect, gay is usually alligned with camp. To these people, it doesn't matter with whom you sleep or who you are attracted to. These people may call a man who sleeps with men a "man who sleeps with men" and these people may even tell you that such a man is not "gay" as he doesn't meet their - personal - criteria of gaydom.

There's actually a Greek joke on this subject: A son comes out to his father telling him he is "gay". The father asks him: "You have a rich sugar daddy?" - "No." - "You like techno and take all sorts of drugs?" - "No, dad." - "You got a job as art director for some fancy magazine?" - "Noooo." - "Listen boy. You ain't gay. You're a homo."

Other people will hold "gay" to denote own-gender-attraction. While it is not fully excluded that someone who is not attracted to his own gender would sleep with members of his gender group (eg "gay for pay" porn stars or hustlers), in most cases this definition would ipso facto include most people who sleep with members of their own gender group.

Other people don't use orientation-centric terms to describe people, for various reasons.
1) In phallocentric societies, nobody cares about what biological sex one is attracted too. For example, in chauvinist male societies, it may be accepted behavior for a man to sleep with (biological) men as long as he is the top. The men taking a passive role may be denigrated and labeled as non-men.
2) In certain (sub)cultures, it is simply irrelevant who one sleeps with or is attracted to. Such cultures may take a "no-shoeboxing" stance on sexuality and gender roles.

Therefore, attraction matters to people who define gay as denoting homosexual ORIENTATION. It does not matter to people who define gay differently or don't use the term at all. The use of the term is subjective and its usefulness is subjective as well. It is a truism to say that no objective value can be attached to either its use or its usefulness.

But does it EMPIRICALLY mean something?


Can I ask you a question, do you think it's ever possible for a man only to be physically sexually attracted to men and not women?

Give over, theoretically the sun might not appear tomorrow - care to wager $5?


You really think you can state categorically that there is no possibility that it MIGHT just be a matter of the right guy?


Who are you to speak for others when they categorically tell you how they feel, who they're attracted to?


I don't speak for them. They are welcome to speak to how they feel, and who they believe they are attracted to.

I'm talking about empirical truth, not subjective testimonies.


Even if it's a purely cultural construct, which the evidence seems to be weighing against, people are still attracted to the same sex exclusively.


Are they?


How deep do you have to define the term before you're simply playing with theory, with words, while denying the knowledge of a good portion of society?


What we 'know' isn't necessarily an empirical truth. Billions of Christians 'know' there is a god, but it doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

I'm actually doing the opposite of playing with the theory.

Can I ask you a question, do you think it's ever possible for a man only to be physically sexually attracted to men and not women?

I can envision it as a statistic.

I find it no more likely than the idea that there could be a man that is only physically sexually attracted to women and not men.

Do I believe it? Personally, I find all the extremes a little unrealistic... so, not really.

I don't think humans have that kind of purity of function in the blueprint.

You really think you can state categorically that there is no possibility that it MIGHT just be a matter of the right guy?

Oh honey...please don't say you're gay...maybe you just haven't found the right woman yet...

It's a matter of linguistics. To some people, "gay" denotes a certain lifestyle, regardless of sexual orientation. In that respect, gay is usually alligned with camp. To these people, it doesn't matter with whom you sleep or who you are attracted to. These people may call a man who sleeps with men a "man who sleeps with men" and these people may even tell you that such a man is not "gay" as he doesn't meet their - personal - criteria of gaydom.

There's actually a Greek joke on this subject: A son comes out to his father telling him he is "gay". The father asks him: "You have a rich sugar daddy?" - "No." - "You like techno and take all sorts of drugs?" - "No, dad." - "You got a job as art director for some fancy magazine?" - "Noooo." - "Listen boy. You ain't gay. You're a homo."

Other people will hold "gay" to denote own-gender-attraction. While it is not fully excluded that someone who is not attracted to his own gender would sleep with members of his gender group (eg "gay for pay" porn stars or hustlers), in most cases this definition would ipso facto include most people who sleep with members of their own gender group.

Other people don't use orientation-centric terms to describe people, for various reasons.
1) In phallocentric societies, nobody cares about what biological sex one is attracted too. For example, in chauvinist male societies, it may be accepted behavior for a man to sleep with (biological) men as long as he is the top. The men taking a passive role may be denigrated and labeled as non-men.
2) In certain (sub)cultures, it is simply irrelevant who one sleeps with or is attracted to. Such cultures may take a "no-shoeboxing" stance on sexuality and gender roles.

Therefore, attraction matters to people who define gay as denoting homosexual ORIENTATION. It does not matter to people who define gay differently or don't use the term at all. The use of the term is subjective and its usefulness is subjective as well. It is a truism to say that no objective value can be attached to either its use or its usefulness.

This is the single best post made in this entire thread.

So basically the last ten pages or so is nothing but a grand argument about semantics. There's irony in there somewhere, I'm sure.

This is the single best post made in this entire thread.

And, rather amusingly, totally reinforces the claim I made about the 'majority' not even being able to present one coherent defintion of 'gay', and states -as it's final clause - the main body of my argument.

And, rather amusingly, totally reinforces the claim I made about the 'majority' not even being able to present one coherent defintion of 'gay', and states -as it's final clause - the main body of my argument.

Nice try. Lay claim to someone much more articulate than yourself...someone actually able to make a point...someone who doesn't claim to 'know' the 'truth' while everyone else is just 'deluded'. In fact, the quoted poster was perfectly able to consider that depending on the definition, we're all right. You lack the spine to do that.

Your little stated-as-fact-not-opinion point that you don't actually 'know' your orientation until you're on your deathbed, remembering whether you fucked anyone outside your supposed orientation would be all well and good...if you had a shred of ability to admit you're not necessarily the last word on the subject.

And seriously. Don't try to take credit for someone else's post. It's even more pathetic than your usual posting style.

My brother used to drive me to distraction with this game.

How do you know blue isn't red?

Well, it's blue?

Is it?

Yes, like the sky, it's blue.

Maybe I see red?

No you don't.

Don't I?

We were 5.

No one can prove what anyone thinks.

Golly gosh.

Actual life goes on.

We are gaining great knowledge of how the brain works, how genetics affects people and we can statistically see correlation between habits, between different sorts of people, regardless of whether we're talking emotion, sexuality, height, weight and more. Certainly plenty of factors come into play, culture, upbringing and more.

We're finding greater correlations between people who define themselves as gay, exclusively attracted the to same sex - a lot of this is muddied greatly by the very cultural and upbringing factors that shape our minds.

Yet, even in all this, we can still be pretty damn sure of people who are attracted to the same sex, and not attracted to the opposite sex, will never act any differently.

We can play the game of 'but how can you know' but it's simply a false, and ultimately useless question in itself - if we spent our lives debating how we could actually know the truth of something, we'd get nothing done.

Perhaps I can accept the idea that there's a possibility, in all possibilities, that people are not actually gay but that's all it is, an idea because in real life, with real people, it seems that possibility in entirely minimal if not non-existent.

How can we know?

If that's all one can come down to - well how can we 'know' King Henry VIII existed.

Perhaps I can accept the idea that there's a possibility, in all possibilities, that people are not actually gay but that's all it is, an idea because in real life, with real people, it seems that possibility in entirely minimal if not non-existent.

How can we know?

If that's all one can come down to - well how can we 'know' King Henry VIII existed.

And to accept this little game as valid, we would also have to accept the unstated yet central foundation of GnI's opinion. That if you say you're a gay man and you ever fuck a woman or are ever attracted to a woman....you somehow aren't gay anymore.

I fuck inanimate objects on a regular basis. I guess I'm not bi. In fact, my fucking inanimate objects means I'm not actually orientated sexually towards humans...not really. :rolleyes:

And to accept this little game as valid, we would also have to accept the unstated yet central foundation of GnI's opinion. That if you say you're a gay man and you ever fuck a woman or are ever attracted to a woman....you somehow aren't gay anymore.

I fuck inanimate objects on a regular basis. I guess I'm not bi. In fact, my fucking inanimate objects means I'm not actually orientated sexually towards humans...not really. :rolleyes:

Picnic tables? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553093)

Do I believe it? Personally, I find all the extremes a little unrealistic... so, not really.

Your answer is a little ambiguous, but I'll take it as a no. Ok so now we know that you believe gays and straights do not exist, this is where you provide the evidence or logical proof.

And to accept this little game as valid, we would also have to accept the unstated yet central foundation of GnI's opinion. That if you say you're a gay man and you ever fuck a woman or are ever attracted to a woman....you somehow aren't gay anymore.

I fuck inanimate objects on a regular basis. I guess I'm not bi. In fact, my fucking inanimate objects means I'm not actually orientated sexually towards humans...not really. :rolleyes:

Well you're probably lying to yourself see.

How can you 'know'?

It's a problem in life, our minds can consider great possibilities, grand abstract theories that can lead to imagination of great benefit and it can also lead to pointless debates on 'hey man, what is, like, real'?

I'm attracted to various females, I'm absolutely not attracted to others - the fact that I could go and fuck those I'm not attracted to does not mean I'm actually attracted to them, it might just mean I fancy a fuck with no emotional attachment to them whatsoever, they're just handy and I can convince them I'm attracted to them in order to get them in bed with me.

I might not even bother.

Does this mean I therefore fancy them, that I'm lying to myself?

But...how would I 'know'?

And, rather amusingly, totally reinforces the claim I made about the 'majority' not even being able to present one coherent defintion of 'gay', and states -as it's final clause - the main body of my argument.

Is a term that has subjective meaning and value necessarily rendered useless?

Is a term that has subjective meaning and value necessarily rendered useless?

I'm fairly certain that this is not how language works. But then, it's not like this is just an argument about semantics or anything.

Nope.



Not at all.







Not semantics in the least.

Your answer is a little ambiguous, but I'll take it as a no. Ok so now we know that you believe gays and straights do not exist, this is where you provide the evidence or logical proof.

Don't hold your breath. In thirty odd pages he hasn't bothered despite repeated requests...and he's been around long enough to know how this goes. He's playing some sort of 'I'll only debate if you're extra nice and say please' game. Perhaps he thinks he is entitled to special treatment.

Don't hold your breath. In thirty odd pages he hasn't bothered despite repeated requests...and he's been around long enough to know how this goes. He's playing some sort of 'I'll only debate if you're extra nice and say please' game. Perhaps he thinks he is entitled to special treatment.

I'm optimistic, I think he mentioned that he had sources but he never bothered to show them.

I'm fairly certain that this is not how language works. But then, it's not like this is just an argument about semantics or anything.

Nope.



Not at all.







Not semantics in the least.

Actually it isn't, GnI has clearly stated that it is impossible to be only exclusively attracted to your own gender. That's more than just semantics.

Does this mean I therefore fancy them, that I'm lying to myself?

But...how would I 'know'?

That's the genius part about it! You don't 'know' until that split second before you die! That's when you get to state your orientation, so they can put it on your headstone! Up until then, anything you say about your orientation is mere delusion!

Oh wait, I bet that still isn't right...because just maybe, if you didn't die when you did, you would have found someone outside of your stated orientation to be attracted to! Or maybe if you had just gone to Mexico instead of Italy you would have found that magic person! Omg that means...that means...you never get to declare your orientation!

Sooooo much more workable than the way we did it before. You know. By just shutting the fuck up and accepting that people know more about who and how they like to fuck than some random internet jackass.

Actually it isn't, GnI has clearly stated that it is impossible to be only exclusively attracted to your own gender. That's more than just semantics.

You're right. It's more than semantics...it's laughable.

I'm optimistic, I think he mentioned that he had sources but he never bothered to show them.

Optimistic? After this many pages? More like insanely clinging to hope... :P

Actually it isn't, GnI has clearly stated that it is impossible to be only exclusively attracted to your own gender. That's more than just semantics.

Ahh...I see. That is somewhat more complicated. It still boils down to semantics, though, as "gay" still either describes being attracted to the same sex, being mostly attracted to the same sex, a lifestyle, or what have you. Regardless of how much one is attracted to members of the same or opposite sex, at some point people are labeled one way or the other for the purposes of convenience, which brings us back around to the definition of "gay".

Kind of how people that are mostly black are black and people who are mostly Indian are Indian...People that are mostly gay are gay. Run with it.

And to accept this little game as valid, we would also have to accept the unstated yet central foundation of GnI's opinion. That if you say you're a gay man and you ever fuck a woman or are ever attracted to a woman....you somehow aren't gay anymore.

I fuck inanimate objects on a regular basis. I guess I'm not bi. In fact, my fucking inanimate objects means I'm not actually orientated sexually towards humans...not really. :rolleyes:

That's not what he is saying at all.

What he is saying is that the labels are meaningless.

Saying that you are 'gay' does not mean that you can never find someone of the opposite sex sexually appealing.
Saying that you are 'straight' does not mean that you can never find someone of the same sex sexually appealing.

Kind of how people that are mostly black are black and people who are mostly Indian are Indian...People that are mostly gay are gay. Run with it.

I'm trying to avoid going down this route since it's a digression, the assertion GnI made is much more ridiculous then that, he claims that it's impossible to be purely gay, I don't care about whether being mostly gay makes you gay or not.

That's not what he is saying at all.

What he is saying is that the labels are meaningless.

Saying that you are 'gay' does not mean that you can never find someone of the opposite sex sexually appealing.
Saying that you are 'straight' does not mean that you can never find someone of the same sex sexually appealing.

You need to read more of his drivel. (But do so with care...it rots the brain)

He isn't just saying the labels are meaningless...he is saying it is literally impossible for a 'straight' person to only be attracted to the opposite sex, and for a 'gay' person to only be attracted to the same sex. Impossible. As in, actually not something you can do.

If he were just arguing semantics, it would be a good argument....like the one made by Dry Heads. We could discuss how the label changes according to how you define it. But GnI hasn't done that...he's told everyone in this thread how things really are. There is a magic woman out there that will make a gay man not gay. And a magic man that will make a straight boy not straight.

I'm trying to avoid going down this route since it's a digression, the assertion GnI made is much more ridiculous then that, he claims that it's impossible to be purely gay, I don't care about whether being mostly gay makes you gay or not.

maybe it would help if everyone involved put forth a definition of gay.....there seems to be a misunderstanding.

I'm trying to avoid going down this route since it's a digression, the assertion GnI made is much more ridiculous then that, he claims that it's impossible to be purely gay, I don't care about whether being mostly gay makes you gay or not.

Exactly. GnI shouldn't be able to weasel out of the ridiculous assertion he's made by turning it into 'oh but I was just talking about how we use terms'.

Yeah no. No you weren't...because THAT would be an intelligent topic.

You need to read more of his drivel. (But do so with care...it rots the brain)

He isn't just saying the labels are meaningless...he is saying it is literally impossible for a 'straight' person to only be attracted to the opposite sex, and for a 'gay' person to only be attracted to the same sex. Impossible. As in, actually not something you can do.

If he were just arguing semantics, it would be a good argument....like the one made by Dry Heads. We could discuss how the label changes according to how you define it. But GnI hasn't done that...he's told everyone in this thread how things really are. There is a magic woman out there that will make a gay man not gay. And a magic man that will make a straight boy not straight.

I've been reading the entire discussion, I feel I have summed up his position nicely.

maybe it would help if everyone involved put forth a definition of gay.....there seems to be a misunderstanding.

As long as we recognise it IS a digression from GnI's opinion-stated-as-fact...since that opinion-stated-as-fact isn't capable of going anywhere anyway.

I think you can be 'gay' even if you had sex with women. (using 'gay man' as exemplar) Especially if you did so while in the closet, or to avoid persecution. I think you can be gay if you experiment with women in an attempt to see if it's 'your thing'. I think that if you are overwhelmingly attracted to the same sex, you are gay.

Same but opposite for straight.

I think 'bi' encompasses all the points in between from being 50/50% attracted to men and women, to being mostly into women but sometimes into a certain kind of man etc. I think gay and straight are useful terms much in the way I think contemporary jazz and europop are useful terms. They describe, they do not necessarily define. If we wanted to narrow language down into complete generalities in order to be more 'inclusive' it would be hardly worth it to speak.

I accept that if you define 'gay' as 'only ever having sex with men, only ever being attracted to men no matter the circumstances' then some people who consider themselves gay, do not fit this 'definition'. I also don't think that matters all that much.

You need to read more of his drivel. (But do so with care...it rots the brain)

He isn't just saying the labels are meaningless...he is saying it is literally impossible for a 'straight' person to only be attracted to the opposite sex, and for a 'gay' person to only be attracted to the same sex. Impossible. As in, actually not something you can do.

If he were just arguing semantics, it would be a good argument....like the one made by Dry Heads. We could discuss how the label changes according to how you define it. But GnI hasn't done that...he's told everyone in this thread how things really are. There is a magic woman out there that will make a gay man not gay. And a magic man that will make a straight boy not straight.

I'm confused as to why that is all that controversial. I mean, isn't it generally accepted by those who research such things that sexuality tends more to be a horizontal axis than a vertical axis? There is a homo-hetero spectrum rather than a dividing line and people tend to fall at all the infinite points along that spectrum rather than at either of its end points. Now, a valid point of contention would be that more people end up at the very extreme outliers of this spectrum than he seems to be proposing. But, from what I gather from his posts, is that it should be possible to test physiological response to gather data on the likelihood of such a thing.

Again, I'm not sure why there's all the snarky vitriol towards his argument. Are you arguing that sexuality is not a thing along a spectrum but a clear cut, option (1), (2), or (3) type dealy?

I've been reading the entire discussion, I feel I have summed up his position nicely.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

What he is saying is that the labels are meaningless.

Saying that you are 'gay' does not mean that you can never find someone of the opposite sex sexually appealing.
Saying that you are 'straight' does not mean that you can never find someone of the same sex sexually appealing.
No. When he says there are no ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ people he means this:
Can I ask you a question, do you think it's ever possible for a man only to be physically sexually attracted to men and not women?
I can envision it as a statistic.
I find it no more likely than the idea that there could be a man that is only physically sexually attracted to women and not men.
Do I believe it? Personally, I find all the extremes a little unrealistic... so, not really.
I don't think humans have that kind of purity of function in the blueprint.
In case you missed it…he is not just arguing the terms, he is straight out saying you can not only be attracted to one gender.

I'm confused as to why that is all that controversial. I mean, isn't it generally accepted by those who research such things that sexuality tends more to be a horizontal axis than a vertical axis? Tends to be is much different from saying ONLY is.

Which is his argument.

There is a homo-hetero spectrum rather than a dividing line and people tend to fall at all the infinite points along that spectrum rather than at either of its end points. Now, a valid point of contention would be that more people end up at the very extreme outliers of this spectrum than he seems to be proposing. But, from what I gather from his posts, is that it should be possible to test physiological response to gather data on the likelihood of such a thing.

Again, I'm not sure why there's all the snarky vitriol towards his argument. Are you arguing that sexuality is not a thing along a spectrum but a clear cut, option (1), (2), or (3) type dealy?
I think that the majority of people can be attracted at some point to men and women. While being more orientated to one than the other. What I don't believe is that there are no people who are ONLY attracted to one gender.

He denies that heteros or homos exist. At all. Everyone is floating around in the middle somewhere.

Don't attribute more to his posts than what he's managed to actually say. It gives him too much credit. Let him make his own 'arguments'.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, I have, you and Fass have been to caught up in being offend by his pretentiousness.

No. When he says there are no ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ people he means this:

In case you missed it…he is not just arguing the terms, he is straight out saying you can not know for sure that you will only be attracted to one gender.

fixed

Yes, I have, you and Fass have been to caught up in being offend by his pretentiousness.

fixed

Again, you err in giving him too much credit. We've quizzed him on this point. He once again stated, in the quote I provided you, that it wasn't possible. He at some points says 'you can't know for sure', but ultimately continues to assert that it's not possible TO BE....not to just know, to BE. "Humans do not have that purity of function in their blueprint". His words.

It makes entirely more sense to state what you have bolded. But despite giving him the benefit of the doubt (you are entirely too generous), your view of what he says directly contradicts a great many of his statements.

Yes, I have, you and Fass have been to caught up in being offend by his pretentiousness.



fixed

To add to what neesika replied, he also stated that "almost everyone" is lying to themselves about their true orientation at least somewhat, do you think that is a rational proposition?

Again, you err in giving him too much credit. We've quizzed him on this point. He once again stated, in the quote I provided you, that it wasn't possible. He at some points says 'you can't know for sure', but ultimately continues to assert that it's not possible TO BE....not to just know, to BE. "Humans do not have that purity of function in their blueprint". His words.

It makes entirely more sense to state what you have bolded. But despite giving him the benefit of the doubt (you are entirely too generous), your view of what he says directly contradicts a great many of his statements.

Meh, he started by coming across as a pretentious ass, and in response you and Fass had hissy fits.

To add to what neesika replied, he also stated that "almost everyone" is lying to themselves about their true orientation at least somewhat, do you think that is a rational proposition?

At what point have I said that I even remotely agree with him?

Meh, he started by coming across as a pretentious ass, and in response you and Fass had hissy fits.

At least we didn't see a cow shit on the pasture, and claim it was actually trying to create art :P

Besides, anything to keep from studying. And don't worry, he's been hissy fitting back...in fact, he'll continue on until he gets the last hissy in no doubt.

At what point have I said that I even remotely agree with him?

Ah I thought you were saying that his ideas weren't that bad but I think I may have been confusing you with Liminus.

*roasts marshmallows on thread*
damn i'm hungry.
*roasts hazelnuts of thread also*
*hands out new warm food*
the perfect plan is now in action.
1) find heat
2) cook food
3)?????????
4) PROFIT!

Then you haven't been paying attention.


No. When he says there are no ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ people he means this:

In case you missed it…he is not just arguing the terms, he is straight out saying you can not only be attracted to one gender.

Hyde asked me about my personal belief.

Nowhere was it suggested that relates, in any way, to the argument I put forward about being 'gay' or 'straight'.

You're attempting to conflate my personal opinion on a specific question, with the premise of discussion.

They aren't (directly) related.

To add to what neesika replied, he also stated that "almost everyone" is lying to themselves about their true orientation at least somewhat, do you think that is a rational proposition?
To the degree that we live in a society that tends to di(or tri...I guess)chotomize sexual orientation instead of recognize it as a spectrum along an axis...yes, that could be construed as an entirely rational proposition.
Ah I thought you were saying that his ideas weren't that bad but I think I may have been confusing you with Liminus.

I said that what he was proposing isn't new and isn't even controversial, though it might still be up for debate. The part Neesika quoted and emphasized, Do I believe it? Personally, I find all the extremes a little unrealistic... so, not really.doesn't seem that big of a deal, either. It is somewhat implausible that, if you proscribe to this spectrum theory, more than an immeasurable minutiae will fall in the most extreme possible outliers.

I will say, though, that with, theoretically, 6.6 billion, or whatever, points on the spectrum, it is also somewhat absurd to think that there won't be a very large number of people who fall very, very, very close to those poles. (pun not intended)

At least we didn't see a cow shit on the pasture, and claim it was actually trying to create art :P

Besides, anything to keep from studying. And don't worry, he's been hissy fitting back...in fact, he'll continue on until he gets the last hissy in no doubt.

More ad hominem? I expect it from Fass, I'm a little saddened to see it being your drug of choice also.

I haven't been 'hissy', at all. If you think you've managed to evoke any strong emotion, you've overestimated the value of the vitriol I've seen.

To add to what neesika replied, he also stated that "almost everyone" is lying to themselves about their true orientation at least somewhat, do you think that is a rational proposition?

People self-identify. That doesn't make their self-identified labels intrinsically empirically meaningful.

I think that the majority of people can be attracted at some point to men and women.

Good, we agree.

Only, because you're self-identified as 'bi', it's okay for you to say it.

Apparently.

To the degree that we live in a society that tends to di(or tri...I guess)chotomize sexual orientation instead of recognize it as a spectrum along an axis...yes, that could be construed as an entirely rational proposition.


That hypothesis does not follow your premise at all. Just because there is a spectrum does not negate that there can be extremes.


It is somewhat implausible that, if you proscribe to this spectrum theory, more than an immeasurable minutiae will fall in the most extreme possible outliers.


Why? Not a shred of reasoning or evidence has been shown to support this.

I'm confused as to why that is all that controversial. I mean, isn't it generally accepted by those who research such things that sexuality tends more to be a horizontal axis than a vertical axis?

According to Fass, no. It's known only to me, and some 16 year old girls who won't put out.

People self-identify. That doesn't make their self-identified labels intrinsically empirically meaningful.

Does something have to be "intrinsically empirically meaningful"?

If we accept the idea that sexuality exists along a spectrum, self-identification is all we will have, in the end. Every individual can have a different sexuality when compared to anyone else.

Skin color is a decent comparison here. Someone may describe me as white or fair-skinned. My coworker may be defined as black or dark-skinned. However, we are not directly representative of all of the people who fall under those descriptors. These terms are rather subjective. No matter how many categories we add, we're still grouping somewhat dissimilar skin colors into a single box. But the alternative would be never describing someone's skin color..

So we speak in vague terms and get more specific when necessary.

According to Fass, no. It's known only to me, and some 16 year old girls who won't put out.

I don't think that Fass has a problem with the idea of sexuality existing along a spectrum.

I think he has a problem with the idea that no one is at the extreme ends of said spectrum.

Good, we agree.

Only, because you're self-identified as 'bi', it's okay for you to say it.

Apparently.

No, we don't agree, oh snipper of quotes.

Because unlike you, while I believe most people can be attracted to men and women to some extent, I do not therefore assert that being attracted to ONLY men or ONLY women is impossible. You must not have bothered reading that far.

Stop avoiding your bigtory, examine it. Why do you need to deny that other people aren't 'fluid'? And why do you keep trying to claim other people's opinions as your own, when they fly directly in the face of the opinions you've actually expressed.

You seem to be a very confused person.

No, we don't agree, oh snipper of quotes.

Because unlike you, while I believe most people can be attracted to men and women to some extent, I do not therefore assert that being attracted to ONLY men or ONLY women is therefore possible.

I think you meant impossible. You are asserting that it's possible. =)

Exactly. GnI shouldn't be able to weasel out of the ridiculous assertion he's made by turning it into 'oh but I was just talking about how we use terms'.

Yeah no. No you weren't...because THAT would be an intelligent topic.

The main thrust has been about how the terms are meaningless. Fass seems to believe he'll cease to exist if we change those terms, but that's not my argument.

(You might want to review my posts and check how I only ever discuss 'gay' and 'straight', not gay and straight.)

I think very few, if any, people can realistically be pigeonholed as empirically homo-sexual or hetero-sexual - but that's beside the point.

I think there is a lack of correlation between self-identified gender, and actual sexual response, but that also, is actually only additional.

Ultimately, my contention has been that very few people can truly 'fit' an absolute definition of 'gay' or 'straight', and that it's just not an adequate reflection on the array of human sexuality. Interestingly - you've posted responses in this thread that suggest you agree with my central premise.

Stephen Colbert self-identifies as straight but is hot for Brad Pitt :p

Does something have to be "intrinsically empirically meaningful"?

If we accept the idea that sexuality exists along a spectrum, self-identification is all we will have, in the end. Every individual can have a different sexuality when compared to anyone else.

Skin color is a decent comparison here. Someone may describe me as white or fair-skinned. My coworker may be defined as black or dark-skinned. However, we are not directly representative of all of the people who fall under those descriptors. These terms are rather subjective. No matter how many categories we add, we're still grouping somewhat dissimilar skin colors into a single box. But the alternative would be never describing someone's skin color..

So we speak in vague terms and get more specific when necessary.

We could be more specific. I mentioned earlier the potential to actually measure sexual response, as a more effective way of attributing gender.

Self-identification, after all, is prone to so many outside factors - from simply not wanting to admit, to the stigma attached, to not even being aware.

Does something have to be "empirically meaningful"?

Well, no - but apparently Fass wants me to wear a clear label, because it's unfair to let people hit on you if you don't intend to bag them. Or something.

Apparently, simply asking people is not good enough.

if any, people can realistically be pigeonholed as empirically homo-sexual or hetero-sexual - but that's beside the point.


No it isn't, that is totally core, since that is your premise for the 'main thrust'.


Ultimately, my contention has been that very few people can truly 'fit' an absolute definition of 'gay' or 'straight'

Please, provide your evidence or logical proof, all I have seen is very vague references in this whole thread, like 'oh I read it in some book somewhere'.

I think you meant impossible. You are asserting that it's possible. =)

Check my edit...my network is absolutely hideous right now and when I noticed the typo it took me ages to fix it....I was just imagining GnI claiming we 'agreed' again because of it *shudders*

No, we don't agree, oh snipper of quotes.

Because unlike you, while I believe most people can be attracted to men and women to some extent, I do not therefore assert that being attracted to ONLY men or ONLY women is impossible. You must not have bothered reading that far.

Stop avoiding your bigtory, examine it. Why do you need to deny that other people aren't 'fluid'? And why do you keep trying to claim other people's opinions as your own, when they fly directly in the face of the opinions you've actually expressed.

You seem to be a very confused person.

I am a confused person, now. I don't understand the gist of this post.

I'm amused that 'snipper of quotes' merits a mention. I take the part of your post I agree with, and say I agree with it. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be bad.

You agree that (I think your original wording was 'the majority', yes?) the majority do not fit into the brackets of pure 'gay' or 'straight' - unless we stretch those definitions beyond any meaning?

What proportion do you honestly believe are ABSOLUTELY dead-on for pure response, then?

Check my edit...my network is absolutely hideous right now and when I noticed the typo it took me ages to fix it....I was just imagining GnI claiming we 'agreed' again because of it *shudders*

Fass is the only person on this thread to have tried to score points off a 'typo'.

What proportion do you honestly believe are ABSOLUTELY dead-on for pure response, then?

Probably very few. But who needs "absolutely dead-on" to preserve a meaningful notion of exclusive attraction?

I am a confused person, now. I don't understand the gist of this post.

I'm amused that 'snipper of quotes' merits a mention. I take the part of your post I agree with, and say I agree with it. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be bad. Because it shows that you either willingly ignored, or were too lazy to read, the next part where I point out that unlike you, I do think people can be 'just gay' and 'just straight' and not somewhere in the middle.

You agree that (I think your original wording was 'the majority', yes?) the majority do not fit into the brackets of pure 'gay' or 'straight' - unless we stretch those definitions beyond any meaning?
No we don't agree...because again, either willingly or lazily you ignored where I pointed out that my definition of gay and straight is pretty fluid itself. Nor do I agree that my definition (actually provided for people to know what it is, unlike yours) is stretched beyond any meaning because of it.

What proportion do you honestly believe are ABSOLUTELY dead-on for pure response, then?Don't know, don't care. I was stating opinion, not fact, and I made that clear.

Again, unlike you.

Fass is the only person on this thread to have tried to score points off a 'typo'.

I love how once again you try to set yourself up as 'better' than Fass in some way when, hitting page 40 of this thread, you yourself have engaged in an extreme amount of pettiness.

At least we have the balls to admit that such pettiness amuses us. You keep at it while saying 'it saddens you to see OTHER people' engage in it.

Your hypocrisy, apparently, knows no bounds.

No we don't agree...because again, either willingly or lazily you ignored where I pointed out that my definition of gay and straight is pretty fluid itself.


Pretty fluids are involved in most really good sex, gay or straight.

What proportion do you honestly believe are ABSOLUTELY dead-on for pure response, then?
You seem to be arguing that we should not use such words as "copper", since any so-called "copper" doubtless has an atom or two of iron or other metal that snuck in.

I don't think that Fass has a problem with the idea of sexuality existing along a spectrum.

I think he has a problem with the idea that no one is at the extreme ends of said spectrum.

..

"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."

You seem to be arguing that we should not use such words as "copper", since any so-called "copper" doubtless has an atom or two of iron or other metal that snuck in.

Did you see this post?
*snickers*

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.
Don’t call it the Pacific Ocean! Cuz there might be waters from other places mingled in there!

I love how once again you try to set yourself up as 'better' than Fass in some way when, hitting page 40 of this thread, you yourself have engaged in an extreme amount of pettiness.

At least we have the balls to admit that such pettiness amuses us. You keep at it while saying 'it saddens you to see OTHER people' engage in it.

Your hypocrisy, apparently, knows no bounds.

I don't have to set myself up as better than Fass. His entire response to my comments has been abuse, claims of authority, claims of my inferiority, other forms of ad hominam, other forms of logical fallacy, attacks on my spelling(?), or general off-topic attacks.

I don't need to present myself as better than Fass. He's done a more than adequate job of it.

Did you see this post?
*snickers*

Don’t call it the Pacific Ocean! Cuz there might be waters from other places mingled in there!

It's a good point. The name is a very vague reference to a geographical location, nothing more - it certainly tells you absolutely nothing about the specific molecules of water involved.

..

I know right? Denying that a sexuality exists? How INSULTING! It certainly crosses a line.

Which is exactly why he posted what he did, mocking the extreme position you've taken which *gasps* denies that people can have a 'straight' or 'gay' sexual orientation.

Satire is a foreign concept to you, it's been clearly demonstrated throughout this thread. It's okay, I think there are support groups.

Interesting how GnI ignores my posts asking for evidence or logical proof.

Interesting how GnI ignores my posts asking for evidence or logical proof.

He's too busy telling being unpetty and trying to the 'last word' in.

It's a good point. The name is a very vague reference to a geographical location, nothing more - it certainly tells you absolutely nothing about the specific molecules of water involved.
There are a lot of words in your own post which you should not be using, by your own standards, since they are very vague, such as "it's", "a", "good", "point", "the", "name", "is", "very", "vague", "reference", "to", "geographical", "location", "nothing", "more", "it", "certainly", "tells", "you", "absolutely", "about", "specific", "molecules", "of", "water", or "involved".

There are a lot of words in your own post which you should not be using, by your own standards, since they are very vague, such as "it's", "a", "good", "point", "the", "name", "is", "very", "vague", "reference", "to", "geographical", "location", "nothing", "more", "it", "certainly", "tells", "you", "absolutely", "about", "specific", "molecules", "of", "water", or "involved".

*giggles profusely*

Because it shows that you either willingly ignored, or were too lazy to read, the next part where I point out that unlike you, I do think people can be 'just gay' and 'just straight' and not somewhere in the middle.


I didn't ignore it. It wasn't the part I agreed with so I didn't cite it as something I agree with.

I'm not seeing the problem here.


No we don't agree...because again, either willingly or lazily you ignored where I pointed out that my definition of gay and straight is pretty fluid itself. Nor do I agree that my definition (actually provided for people to know what it is, unlike yours) is stretched beyond any meaning because of it.


You don't agree?

Then what did you mean by: "I think that the majority of people can be attracted at some point to men and women", "I believe most people can be attracted to men and women to some extent" and "I think you can be 'gay' even if you had sex with women... I accept that if you define 'gay' as 'only ever having sex with men, only ever being attracted to men no matter the circumstances' then some people who consider themselves gay, do not fit this 'definition'..."?

And - I have to ask - since I haven't offered a definition for 'gay' or 'straight, and have stated as my platform that the versions offered are broken... what exactly do you mean by "actually provided for people to know what it is, unlike yours"?

I don't think there's really any confusion about my 'definitions'... I don't have any (except, maybe such as can be derived empirically), I'm questioning the ones that DO exist.

Don't know, don't care. I was stating opinion, not fact, and I made that clear.

Again, unlike you.

I asked what you "honestly believe". I believe 'opinion' is allowed, in that premise.

His entire response to my comments has been abuse

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600455&postcount=97

Imagine that! When your first post here to me is to deny my existence and tell me I am lying to myself, and then your second one to me is to tell me to "fuck off as hard as I can" when I don't buy your bullshit, you're met with hostility, oh, you innocent snowflake, you - and then you spend the rest of the thread bitching about "ad hominems" others have directed at you and wonder how it came to be that you garnered such hostility?

There's a French saying: "Comme on fait son lit, on se couche." You made your bed, now lie in it - especially as you're the instigator of this whole thing. Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. It really doesn't. "Waah, Fass was mean to me after I told him to fuck off! What a jerk!"

He's too busy telling being unpetty and trying to the 'last word' in.

He's too busy, yes. Nothing to do with 'the last word', of course - which seems to be your new big thing and which - I notice, you cited even when I wasn't here earlier. Last word by telepathy, perhaps?

Not everything is available on the internet, heretical though that posture might be.

I even admitted that it could just be my poor abilities to find online, the materials I've seen offline. When I did find sources online, they weren't available to share.

This has all been said before, but you can continue with your little 'last word' charade if it makes you feel better.

We could be more specific. I mentioned earlier the potential to actually measure sexual response, as a more effective way of attributing gender.

Why would it be?

Is physical response the only or even best indicator of sexual attraction? If a man gets an erection, is it necessarily a direct sign of attraction?

Self-identification, after all, is prone to so many outside factors - from simply not wanting to admit, to the stigma attached, to not even being aware.

But sexuality isn't a matter of simple measurement.

There are psychological components to sexuality that differ greatly from person to person. For instance, I have been attracted to male strangers but rarely find that with female strangers. I may notice an attractive woman I don't know, but I am unlikely to really be sexually attracted to her. But, male or female, getting to know someone can increase the chances of sexual attraction and I have been sexually attracted to women I know well. How do you measure that in a lab setting? How do you even measure "gotten to know well"?

While self-identification certainly has its problems, it's probably the best indicator we'll ever have of human sexuality.


Check my edit...my network is absolutely hideous right now and when I noticed the typo it took me ages to fix it....I was just imagining GnI claiming we 'agreed' again because of it *shudders*

Just didn't want it to cause confusion. =)


..


"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."

I think what he was saying there is that, because some bisexuals claim that there is no "straight" or "gay", some people have begun claiming that there is no "bisexual."

I didn't ignore it. It wasn't the part I agreed with so I didn't cite it as something I agree with.

I'm not seeing the problem here.
This is really sad GnI.

What's going on with you? You, I believed, actually had some abilities as a debator...or at the very least I never took you for batshit insane.

You cherry picked a phrase, said you agreed with IT and then stated that because you agreed with IT, you and I agree. But since you ignored an important part of my statement, you have misrepresented the totality of my opinion in order to fashion the semblance of an agreement between us, when fundamnetally we are in direct disagreement.

Only two kinds of people do what you've just done. The dishonest, and the stupid.

Though I'm willing to accept temporary insanity.

I even admitted that it could just be my poor abilities to find online, the materials I've seen offline. When I did find sources online, they weren't available to share.

This has all been said before, but you can continue with your little 'last word' charade if it makes you feel better.

Then what's the point in making such provocative and unreasonable assertions when you can't physically back them up. There's no point in continuing this debate until you can.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600455&postcount=97

Imagine that! When your first post here to me is to deny my existence and tell me I am lying to myself, and then your second one to me is to tell me to "fuck off very hard" when I don't buy your bullshit, you're met with hostility, oh, you innocent snowflake, you - and then you spend the rest of the thread bitching about "ad hominems" othershave directed at you and wonder how it came to be?

There's a French saying: "Comme on fait sin lit, on se couche." You made your bed, now lie in it - especially as you're the instigator of this whole thing. Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. It really doesn't.

Actually, I suggested you "fuck off as hard as you can", and it takes only seconds to find the explanation. You elect yourself as the arbiter, but ultimately, you're just... well, you. Your opinion is worth exactly that.

So, when you say "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." (which, interestingly ACTIVELY denies me my sexuality TWICE, whilst pretending I'd done the same thing to you), I explain my response: "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".

Nothing to do with 'buying bullshit', no matter how hard you pretend. I responded to your attempt to deus ex machina the debate.


Maybe worth mentioning once again (again) - nowhere have I denied your existence. Nor even your sexuality.

I think what he was saying there is that, because some bisexuals claim that there is no "straight" or "gay", some people have begun claiming that there is no "bisexual."

Exactly. GnI started this whole thread by telling me that I as a gay man don't exist and to fuck off, and then spent the rest of it bitching that he got what he was dishing out.

This is really sad GnI.

What's going on with you? You, I believed, actually had some abilities as a debator...or at the very least I never took you for batshit insane.

You cherry picked a phrase, said you agreed with IT and then stated that because you agreed with IT, you and I agree. But since you ignored an important part of my statement, you have misrepresented the totality of my opinion in order to fashion the semblance of an agreement between us, when fundamnetally we are in direct disagreement.

Only two kinds of people do what you've just done. The dishonest, and the stupid.

Though I'm willing to accept temporary insanity.

Cute.

I picked a phrase I agreed with, and said I agreed with IT. You and I agree on this much.

I think you're looking for a fight where there is none.

Exactly. GnI started this whole thread by telling me that I as a gay man don't exist and to fuck off, and then spent the rest of it bitching that he got what he was dishing out.

This isn't even close to true.

Then what's the point in making such provocative and unreasonable assertions when you can't physically back them up. There's no point in continuing this debate until you can.

Again - even in absence of a source, there is value to the debate. Do YOU honestly believe the definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' are accurate and/or meaningful in some empirical sense?

Especially bearing in mind that, even within THIS thread, we still can't achieve a definition of what 'gay' or 'straight' means?

Do YOU honestly believe that the array of human sexuality can be adequately described by two (maybe, grudgingly sometimes) three positions?

Again - even in absence of a source, there is value to the debate. Do YOU honestly believe the definitions of 'gay' and 'straight' are accurate and/or meaningful in some empirical sense?

Especially bearing in mind that, even within THIS thread, we still can't achieve a definition of what 'gay' or 'straight' means?

Do YOU honestly believe that the array of human sexuality can be adequately described by two (maybe, grudgingly sometimes) three positions?

I don't deny the possibility of a spectrum. I am just stating that people do fit on the extremes of each side, as well as in the middle somewhere. You're saying that they don't, you need to back this up, you can't, debate over.

This isn't even close to true.

You have an amazing ability to pretend that black is white....and to backpeddle on all your statements.

You sink to new, and amazing lows. Though I'd want to distance myself too....no one could defend the excrement coming out of your mouth.

Actually, I suggested you "fuck off as hard as you can"

Oh, so you're not as innocent as you'd like to pretend you are? You actually started this hostile exchange and then started bitching that it was hostile? Oh, grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for what you said for once.

So, when you say "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." (which, interestingly ACTIVELY denies me my sexuality TWICE, whilst pretending I'd done the same thing to you),

Yeah, I said that after you claimed that people like me don't exist. You were dishing it out, but you couldn't take it. And this is what this whole thread is about.

explain my response: "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".

You know whom this is mirroring? You. This is exactly what you've been dishing out the entire thread, but when you got a ladle-full of it back right in your cheekless face, all of a sudden you want to start bitching about it, as if it's somehow not what you were doing at all. Such intellectual dishonesty and blindness for your own behaviour is delusional, as I have noted on several occasions.

Maybe worth mentioning once again (again) - nowhere have I denied your existence. Nor even your sexuality.

Oh, take responsibility for your actions! You have on countless occasions denied my sexuality and have said it to be nothing but lies and that you indeed know better than me what it is and that you can edict to me. Neesika has quoted you to yourself almost as many times as you've said it, and you stand here, with the gall to deny saying what you said? Pathetically wormy, and doesn't fool anyone.

Why would it be?

Is physical response the only or even best indicator of sexual attraction? If a man gets an erection, is it necessarily a direct sign of attraction?


A better sign, perhaps, than just oral testimony.

For several reasons, not least being the way people often talk about 'realising' they were 'gay' or 'bisexual'. (Or, I assume 'straight', although one assumes that gets less press). How can an oral testimony give an accurate description, when it can't even express latent desires?


But sexuality isn't a matter of simple measurement.

There are psychological components to sexuality that differ greatly from person to person. For instance, I have been attracted to male strangers but rarely find that with female strangers. I may notice an attractive woman I don't know, but I am unlikely to really be sexually attracted to her. But, male or female, getting to know someone can increase the chances of sexual attraction and I have been sexually attracted to women I know well. How do you measure that in a lab setting? How do you even measure "gotten to know well"?

While self-identification certainly has its problems, it's probably the best indicator we'll ever have of human sexuality.


It's probably the best indicator of how a person feels about their own human sexuality.

But what does it 'mean'?

I don't deny the possibility of a spectrum. I am just stating that people do fit on the extremes of each side, as well as in the middle somewhere. You're saying that they don't, you need to back this up, you can't, debate over.

Heh. Half an answer is actually pretty good...

This isn't even close to true.

Do you take us for as blind as you? There are no depths to which you will not sink. You have no honour, and can't even stand for what you started this thread with and repeated so, so many times. Distasteful and spineless.

But what does it 'mean'?
What does "it" mean? What does "mean" mean? What does "what" mean? What does "does" mean?

Do YOU honestly believe that the array of human sexuality can be adequately described by two (maybe, grudgingly sometimes) three positions?

Can the array of human skin tones be adequately described by all of the terms we have to describe them?

Does this mean that describing someone's skin tone by grouping it with other fairly similar skin tones is useless?

For instance, someone might describe me as white or as fair-skinned. Without having ever seen me, you would still have an idea of what this meant my skin looked like. However, you wouldn't know everything. You wouldn't know if my skin was more pinkish or olive-toned. You wouldn't know whether or not I had freckles, moles, or birthmarks in various places. You wouldn't be aware of tan lines I might have.

I think we can look at sexuality in much the same way. If someone is described as gay, straight, or bisexual, we can get an idea of where they lie on the sexuality spectrum. But unless we go deeper with that particular individual, we won't know exactly where the boundaries of his attractions lie or even on what basis those boundaries are drawn.

You have an amazing ability to pretend that black is white....and to backpeddle on all your statements.

You sink to new, and amazing lows. Though I'd want to distance myself too....no one could defend the excrement coming out of your mouth.

Fass said "Exactly. GnI started this whole thread by telling me that I as a gay man don't exist and to fuck off, and then spent the rest of it bitching that he got what he was dishing out."

I didn't start the thread.

I didn't tell Fass he didn't exist.

I didn't tell Fass he "as a gay man" didn't exist.

My response is taken out of context, and is directed towards Fass's first ad hominem attack on me. While crude, it's not part of the argument that Fass claims it is, and it was hardly apropos of nothing.

I haven't spent the rest of the thread bitching that I got what I was dishing out. I've tried to stay away from the crudity and the heated passions as we progressed, but apparently am the only one that feels the need to.

What I have mainly 'spent the rest of the thread bitching' about, is that logical fallacy (mainly ad hominem) has constituted almost the entire response to my arguments, no matter how constructive I might try to be.

So - what Fass said is not even vaguely true.

Do you take us for as blind as you? There are no depths to which you will not sink. You have no honour, and can't even stand for what you started this thread with and repeated so, so many times. Distasteful and spineless.

Let's see: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

That might be some kind of record.

With any luck, someone will report this thread to moderation.

A better sign, perhaps, than just oral testimony.

Why?

Is a physical reaction the sum total of sexual attraction?

For several reasons, not least being the way people often talk about 'realising' they were 'gay' or 'bisexual'. (Or, I assume 'straight', although one assumes that gets less press). How can an oral testimony give an accurate description, when it can't even express latent desires?

I don't think we're ever going to have an "accurate" description. Too much of sexuality is internal for that. What we can get is a "good enough" description.

And, as society removes the stigmas on less common sexual tendencies, the instances in which a person tries denies their own desires will hopefully become less of a problem.

It's probably the best indicator of how a person feels about their own human sexuality.

Can we necessarily detach human sexuality from a person's feelings?

But what does it 'mean'?

What would a physical response without a psychological one mean?

Oh ...doesn't fool anyone.

You win, Fass.

I didn't start the thread.

I started this thread. You started off in this thread with saying that gay and straight people don't exist, and then that I should fuck off when I said that your sexuality didn't exist.

I didn't tell Fass he didn't exist.

I didn't tell Fass he "as a gay man" didn't exist.

You have no shame.

So - what Fass said is not even vaguely true.

You really have no shame. Gutless.

Let's see: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

"Fuck off as hard as you can." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600455&postcount=97)

What does "it" mean? What does "mean" mean? What does "what" mean? What does "does" mean?

Dude, like...whoa, man...that's like, totally, like, deep. I'm like, freaking out, man...

You have no shame.


In GnI's defence, I don't think he said that you don't exist, rather that you're lying to yourself about your sexuality, which is still a pretty bad thing to say anyway..

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

Hey, furries find them interesting sexually...

Locked for now.

Go duck your heads in buckets of ice water, the lot of you.