PDA

View Full Version : Can you really categorize sexuality ?



Oracle
09-02--2006, 07:00 PM
Can you really say that some1 is of a certain sexuality ?

Most people will label themselves or others as a certain sexuality, btu is this really the case ?

There was a time when you were either gay or straight, and then bi-sexuality was accepted a a genuine sexuality, and everyone thought that there weren't any other sexualities. But then another one was introduced and is now officially recognised; asexuality - I have a friend who says he is asexual and I knew about it when he told me, but another mate who was with us at the time just couldn't understand how somebody could be asexual. But I don't see why we have to even label people at all. Isn't it more like a sexual spectrum ?

Couldn't there be varying degrees of bi-sexuality ?
After all there are lots of straight people who just like to occasionally hook-up with members of the same sex, but most of the time don't find them attractive at all, and vice-versa.

Paul
09-02--2006, 07:30 PM
I see it like a line on a ruler ... With homosexuality being at one end, bi-sexuality in the middle and heterosexuality being at the other end.

I think everyone is at different places along that line, and none of those places are any better or worse than the other.

I think people can change their position on the line during their lifetime depending on their changing experiences and/or tastes.

matthew
09-02--2006, 08:14 PM
I'm sticking with hetrosexuality for the time being..sorry lads.

PeacePiper
09-02--2006, 08:24 PM
I think if society carries on the direction it's going with people understanding themselves better and better, our culture will start to understand that this is so. It's quite easy to see that people aren't always categorisable and work more on a scale

:thumbup: Not something I'd really thought about before but very true

matthew
09-02--2006, 08:34 PM
I think if society carries on the direction it's going with people understanding themselves better and better, our culture will start to understand that this is so. It's quite easy to see that people aren't always categorisable and work more on a scale

:thumbup: Not something I'd really thought about before but very true

I dunno i think it is more ups and downs..backwards and forwards.. back in roman times shagging your 'help' be that male or female..seemed to be the norm.. Jump to 18th century and you have debauched behaviour all over the place again .. with a period of stern none sexualisation in the middle .. of course with variables either way inbetween.

Maybe NOTHING changes as far as 'we' go.. just what is and is not publicaly acceptable. ?.

scarlett
09-02--2006, 09:30 PM
I see it like a line on a ruler ... With homosexuality being at one end, bi-sexuality in the middle and heterosexuality being at the other end.

I think everyone is at different places along that line, and none of those places are any better or worse than the other.

I think people can change their position on the line during their lifetime depending on their changing experiences and/or tastes

have to agree with paul

PeacePiper
09-02--2006, 10:18 PM
Maybe NOTHING changes as far as 'we' go.. just what is and is not publicaly acceptable. ?.
I don't disagree, but if that comes about again, it'll likely be because people are less naive about themselves

jenni
09-02--2006, 11:00 PM
By my reckoning, attraction can happen towards either sex, but there are folk for whom you look mainly at one sex and when someone of the other gender comes along and attracts you it is more unexpected. And there are some who will notice feelings or attraction towards either gender, and not more or less for either.

....if that made sense. i think i mostly agree with you folk. i think that now people feel better about considering that they may have feelings towards their own gender etc,

but it could easily change as in our culture could quite happily turn against the concept of homosexuality, imo, cos it only takes a little paranoia and some scapegoating after some economic crisis or a big political blow out or something and we go straight back to being bigots!

i hope im wrong but i can imagine us being that dumb as a culture. :mad:

Firinne
10-02--2006, 12:01 AM
Yup, with Paul on this one ... and not wondering where staring at Keira Knightley places me on the ruler, honest :whistle:

moominmamma
10-02--2006, 09:34 AM
Yes I think Paul is right on this one..........I did once, while rather drunk decide to explain this theory to some workmates at a hen party......it was in retrospect kind of embarrassing watching them edge further and further away from me......

Claudius
10-02--2006, 10:01 AM
Interesting..... Where, Paul, would you put asexuality on you'r ruler?

Atomik
10-02--2006, 10:02 AM
0cm? :D

Brick
10-02--2006, 12:55 PM
Hmm... THis thread started me looking over back issues of New Scientist. The linear sliding scale works fine when compared with a bi-polar gender model. But what if that gender model isn't so simple?
Ones gender depends on unblurred XX or XY chromosonal pairs and the relative strength of expression of half a dozen genes governing things like testoserone production, development of wolfian and mullerian ducts, development of testes, etc.
There are a lot of people out there who're not one or other gender but current societal prejudice force behaviour in one or other way.
If someone is truly intersex how can gay/straight/bi apply?
If anyone's interested the articles are in NS 12 May 2001 No2290.

Cheers.

Oracle
10-02--2006, 05:50 PM
There was a really good article on asexuality in New Scientist last yr.

matthew
10-02--2006, 06:09 PM
I don't disagree, but if that comes about again, it'll likely be because people are less naive about themselves

I guess that kind behaviour was more for those that could rise above the norm... because of wealth ?.

I was going to disagree with the 'naive' part.. Maybe people are, maybe i am 'naive' about myself.. maybe i just need a big c...erm well you know.

Hand on heart i have to say i have no desire too though and it has not crossed my mind ... honest.

Of course Paul is right...APART FROM ''I think people can change their position on the line during their lifetime depending on their changing experiences and/or tastes.'' can't figure out how you can move along this 'ruler' though.. everybody it seems is keen or just willing to slide up and down [pardon the pun]... I am not and can't see it being likely in my life time :)

melyn
10-02--2006, 06:24 PM
I agree with Paul, its just a scale and you are where ever you are on the scale.

Brick
10-02--2006, 08:04 PM
There was a really good article on asexuality in New Scientist last yr.
Ah, might be in one of the issues I missed while moving house. Got the date/number? :)

PeacePiper
11-02--2006, 03:04 PM
Of course Paul is right...APART FROM ''I think people can change their position on the line during their lifetime depending on their changing experiences and/or tastes.'' can't figure out how you can move along this 'ruler' though.. everybody it seems is keen or just willing to slide up and down [pardon the pun]... I am not and can't see it being likely in my life time :)

I might've agreed in theory, but I know someone that has gone from gay to straight, so I'd be quite dumb to agree


I was going to disagree with the 'naive' part.. Maybe people are, maybe i am 'naive' about myself.. maybe i just need a big c...erm well you know.

Picture Lord of the Rings, picture Frodo and Sam. Their relationship always seemed rather... close, even though they were completely straight. Who knows, maybe if they were in Roman society they'd have got it on. If men nowadays weren't afraid of such close relationships, maybe they'd find themselves intrigued with another sexual side they didn't know existed


Maybe what the world really needs is one big bi-sexual orgy! ...or maybe not... :shock:


BTW, I'm not gay...

Fleassy
12-02--2006, 10:45 AM
also the high levels of estrogen in the water might have dsomething to play on the current large gay community. Not meaning that the water is making people gay but the estrogen is in such high levels becasue of the amount of women on the pill, and therees estrogen pumped into animals who become meat on our plate, aand milk in our tea that its going to start effecting up.

I've noticed a large step towards androgeny with physical looks.

So this being that people are begining to look very similar that to fancy physically only women and not men would be a bit foolish as soo many men look femal... and so many females look male.


Just a thought.

Lady_Fantasy
02-03--2006, 04:01 PM
very good question, its something i have always wondered and i still dont know. I've heard the 'i fall in love with the person, not their gender' too many times in my life but i guess if i had to define myself (dont really have to) i'd say that, though i still lean heavily on the heterosexual side because I do want to have kids at some point but I still feel i could be with a woman. i guess it sound smore confusing that it actually is.

stuoolong
02-03--2006, 07:19 PM
You fancy some types of people at some time in your life and that can change. Another perspective on moving up and down the ruler - maybe you only fancy women throughout your whole lifetime, but that might change from "girly girls" to "tomboys" - doesn't that mean your sexuality has changed, just has much as if you've also started fancying a few guys as well?

"Intersex" people, e.g. those with Klinefelters (XXY) - I don't really see how they don't fit in. They might be attracted to mostly men or mostly women, or a mixture - it's just the same sorts of feelings, even if they are pheno/genotypically different.

Asexual people don't fit on to the ruler, and why should they? Maybe they jump down and dance on it every now and then. What about older folk who've completely lost interest in sexual matters? Are they asexual? There are an awful lot of them.

In summary, all sexual people sit somewhere on the ruler, and they can move about or get off the ruler. Asexual people can get on the ruler too but usually stay off it.

metal_head
06-03--2006, 06:25 PM
Picture Lord of the Rings, picture Frodo and Sam. Their relationship always seemed rather... close, even though they were completely straight. Who knows, maybe if they were in Roman society they'd have got it on. If men nowadays weren't afraid of such close relationships, maybe they'd find themselves intrigued with another sexual side they didn't know existed

that could have made the films a bit more interesting :eek:

ecomamma
07-03--2006, 01:17 AM
I can seriously say im straight, women i find beautiful & i have intense connection with well they are my friends...:D i love them so much but not in a way i want to be that close...altho as time goes on & i keep drinking the water who knows...i do live in Brighton & anything is possible...;) no, not really.......how can you give up :sex: & go into the realm of plastics il never know:whistle: if i was gay i think i would have to hate willies for sure....& i dont...so im not...(very tired & probaly going to regret posting this)

Minwah
07-03--2006, 12:52 PM
Can you really say that some1 is of a certain sexuality ?

Sure, for some people. For me women are far too lovely to consider men (or animals) :D

metal_head
07-03--2006, 04:26 PM
Sure, for some people. For me women are far too lovely to consider men (or animals) :D

:greenlol: