66 replies to this topic

[Sheik]

I honestly think it's this sort of "manliness" status quo and the fear of being unmanly that causes most straight men act 'manly'. It's also the reason why the people who are more secure about their manhood are more likely to act less manly. Nothing to prove, you know?

That's for pretty much the same reason that some homosexuals tend to act in the way Twilight_Knight discribed earlier. It's about prooving yourself and others that you are who you are supposed to be by behaving according to role expectation. Being "a man" is sort of a social role and it's associated with certain attributes. Out of insecurity and to proove themselves that they are men, some guys try to fulfill (knowingly or subconcious, it doesn't really matter) every role expactation that comes with "being a man". To a large degree that's caused by education and socialization and only a little of it is natural (as men for example are generally faster to jump in for competitive behavior due to evolutional heritage). To many guys, being a man means to constantly proove they are manly, it's some sort of competition. (As for me, I think manlyness is less about behavior but more about what you have between your legs, but not everybody seems to see it that way.)
With that itself I have not such a big problem, the problem is rather what's considered "manly" and more importantly "not manly" in our societies. Healthy behavior such as interest in superiority in sports seems to be a good thing that comes from the wish to fulfill role expectations but for example the fear that expressing emotions isn't manly (and thusly behavior that's to be avoided) is a sick development of our emotionally crippled societies.


Sorry do derail this again, but I figured since PowerGauntlets brought it up I felt like explaining it, because why not.

[NoeL]

That's just NoeL stirring things up in search of a debate, which (me being the masochist I am) I willingly give...

Tsk tsk. If you're going to bow out you can't point fingers, because then I have to reply to defend myself and things keep rolling. Not cool dude Especially when you started the whole thing off by taking offense to something not worth taking offense to. I do love me some debates though!

all concepts of "sexual orientation" are absurd. You love who you love. Period.

All concepts of "colour" are absurd. It's the hue it is. Period. I can understand where you're coming from in that there's no discrete categories of sexuality, but to claim sexual orientation as an "absurd" concept kinda misses the mark IMO. There are no discrete hues - it's one big spectrum - but that doesn't mean it's absurd to say something it "red". There's still utility in making discrete labels even if it's a continuum in nature.

I believe in moral ambiguity. There IS no universal right/wrong. An action is only what you personally believe it is, and wretched society be damned!

I disagree. I'm going to start a thread in the Debate Room, so you should come post over there

[ShadowTiger]

0-0 ...This explains SO MUCH. All this time I thought you were just deliberately smoke screening people who got too social. I may owe you an apology.

Yeah, sorry about that... It's one of those "You have {x} belief, then you learn fact [y] so then you combat {x} and {y} and see what wins, but [x] and [y] are so very different, like comparing bridges and oranges yet with a tiny connection that kinda seeps into both until one of them corrodes...

That morality thing is interesting though. I'll be sure to pop in there a few times to see what people think.

[Eurysilas]

I can understand where you're coming from in that there's no discrete categories of sexuality, but to claim sexual orientation as an "absurd" concept kinda misses the mark IMO.

What if you're heterosexual and have an affair with a man? You'd argue "Then you're bisexual or never were heterosexual". But I've heard of a few instances where, after aforementioned relationship ran its course, the person in question reverted to exclusively opposite-gender relations, even though they were happy dating that one male (I know it sounds like I'm deliberately inventing scenarios to screw with your position, but I'm not).

No. I believe sexual dynamics should be much as many ancient cultures thought of it- to those the thought of classification based on gender preference made a needless distinction.

[Sheik]

You know, who you have an relationship to says nothing about your sexual orientation. Throughout all histroy there have for example been gay men that married women and even had children with them.
Sexual orientation can be classified. The "dynamic" you describe is what the term bisexual is used for, it's neither one extreme nor the other or forcefully a 50%/50% thing. Really, the Kinsey-scala is a great reference (eventhough it doesn't mention pansexuality to my knowledge), look it up.

[NoeL]

What if you're heterosexual and have an affair with a man? You'd argue "Then you're bisexual or never were heterosexual".

Noop. I never said sexual orientation had to be a static thing. The guy could be heterosexual, then bisexual, then heterosexual again (though if the homosexuality is limited to one guy I'd hesitate to even say they're bi. They're still mostly heterosexual, but with a little bit of gay ).

But I've heard of a few instances where, after aforementioned relationship ran its course, the person in question reverted to exclusively opposite-gender relations, even though they were happy dating that one male (I know it sounds like I'm deliberately inventing scenarios to screw with your position, but I'm not).

No. I believe sexual dynamics should be much as many ancient cultures thought of it- to those the thought of classification based on gender preference made a needless distinction.

I'm in disagreement because the cases you mentioned are the exceptions, not the rule. It's very rare for peoples' sexual preferences to flip-flop like that, and so preference-based classifications are adequate for the most part.

[Sheik]

(though if the homosexuality is limited to one guy I'd hesitate to even say they're bi. They're still mostly heterosexual, but with a little bit of gay ).

Why? Words have definitions, that's the great thing. If something fits the definition of a word you can use this word to describe the phenomenon at hand.

Could not find it in english apparently, but let me translate:


0: only heterosexual

1: mostly heterosexual, just occosianlly homosexual
2: mostly heterosexual, more than just occosianally homosexual
3: likewise heterosexual and homosexual
4: mostly homosexual, more than just occosianally heterosexual
5: mostly homosexual, just occosianally heterosexual

6: only homosexual

X: no socio-sexual contacts or reactions (meaning asexual)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are bisexual. The text with the two arrows read "bisexual experiences existent".

There, what Eurysilas described would be a bisexual Kinsey number 1 most likely.

It's not even complicated. There's words. Words have meanings. You can use these words to describe stuff.

Edit: Fun fact: The Kinsey Report brought forth that 90-95% have bisexual tendencies and/or experiences.

Edited by Sheik91, 09 September 2011 - 06:14 AM.