Can you differentiate sexual preference?

[Makalakumu]

(no offense for putting you on the spot, raedyn) Contrary to popular misconception in this thread, "Can one always tell by looking/interaction" is not the original question. If it was, I would have voted no. Read my previous post; of COURSE you can't tell just by looking or interaction....

All right, if classification in action is one thing, why is classification in thought another? Can you classify these people?

A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...

Or this person...

When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly. No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families. Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it. Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves. It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy. I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him. He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well. Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.

Upnorth's original question was basically "can someone belong in a category."
"Can one differentiate between Hetro's, Homo's, and Bi's."

Tulisan, this is the question I asked.

Can you differentiate sexual preference? Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?

I phrased it like this for many reasons. One of them was to draw out people who believed that it couldn't be done in action but could in thought.

This stemmed from the "When did same gender relations become wrong" thread. Upnorth hypothesises that one can't differentiate between the different sexual preferences. He also hypothesizes that everyone is gay (or straight) to some percentage. He also, in the previous thread, made a lot of assumptions on what would be considered "gay behavior." I believe that this is a simple method of obfusicating the issues to get people to question their own sexuality for one, and for two to get people to agree with this worldview that "everyone is gay to some degree, therefore how could homosexuality be 'wrong.'

Which assumptions do you disagree with? Is it wrong to rethink some of this stuff?

As it is related to this topic, I argue that determining preference is a very easy thing to do for THE MAJORITY or the population. If your mom decides she prefers the same sex, then she is homosexual. If I decide I prefer the opposite sex, then I am hetro. etc., etc., etc.... this is not that difficult of a task (unless of course your trying to cloud the issues, as I have said).

If you decide you prefer the opposite sex and then go with the same for some reason...is it so easy? How often does this happen? Are you sure about the majority?

Where it becomes difficult is categorizing sexual behavior. For example, many hetrosexual males rape other males in prison for reasons having to do with other environmental and psychological factors that have little to do with preference.

I agree with you here. I guess it could be argue as to whether this behavior is sexual at all.

However, we aren't talking about categorizing behaviors...we are talking about simply determining SEXUAL PREFERENCE. This is a very easy thing to do for most people.

I can agree with this to a certain extent. I think it is very easy for some people. Yet, the way we do it leaves out the subtleties.

 

[Makalakumu]

Nice 7sm,

I think I see what is happening on a motive level, correct me if I'm wrong UpN, but I think the idea is that there are labels that are used to simply describe where someone is going to be placed within the context of a discussion/study/observation and then there are labels that are branded on people and become 'labels' or caste society level of categories that don't account for the other contextual considerations...

if that is the case, I understand but don't agree with the approach because,as a scientist, how can you possibly have any form of theory, discussion, or make valid observations if you don't establish parameters of some kind - not as hard cast 'frames' as Janulis put it but just ways of establishing markers for the discussion topics and terms?

I think you all have me here. I'm going to concede this point to the group as long as we can agree that these psuedotaxa aren't really good at describing reality...

 

[Tgace]

What other definitions would you suggest??

 

[Makalakumu]

What I dislike about the Kinsey scale (from what I have seen, but I am reaching back to my few college psych classes) is that it makes assumption about behavior being homo or hetro to determine to what scale a person is homo or hetro. I find this ironic because many people use this information that typcasts behavior to determine that "the lines are grey, so you can't typcast someones sexuality." I think that there is too much about personal psychology and environment to be able to determine what behaviors are "gay" or not.

I think in some cases, similar behavior can occur for totally different reason. Yet, in others, the reasons can be attributed different gradiations of sexual attraction.

Can you come up with an example to describe your objection to Kinsey?

 

[7starmantis]

A better way to say this is that you have an interest in same sex relationships. You share this interest with other homosexuals. Compared to someone who is not interested at all in ANY same sex relationships, this moves you out of their part of the sandbox.

See, here is where your actually making assumptions yourself. Your assuming you know what motivates the "frat jock" to enjoy watching two women together. Your trying to tie it to an attraction of same sex relationships, when it could just be a horny guy who likes to see women naked and in such cases believes "two is better than one". Your speaking about not assuming or labeling sexuality and yet you do it yourself to make your point.

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

Some thoughts on Alfred Kinsey’s “Kinsey Scale,” as I understand it, anyways.

Synopsis: Basically the Kinsey scale was a gradient scale from 0 to 6. that was used to measure fantasies, thoughts, dreams, sexual activity, emotions, etc. Instead of picturing sexual orientation as an either/or issue, Kinsey developed his scale based on the degree of sexual responsiveness people have for members of the same and opposite sex. His research was done around the 40’s or 50’s. I know that he predates Masters and Johnson’s work, because a lot of their work on the subject utilized the path that Kinsey’s laid.

Basically Kinsey determined that people don’t fit into the two categories “hetro” or “homo,” but that ones orientation is more of a continuum between homo and hetro.

Things I liked about the research:

1. It explored the “taboo” subject of homosexuality during a time when this wasn’t widely excepted.
2. It paved the way for a lot of good research on human sexuality.
3. It did question the black and white way in which people looked at sexuality. Most behavior cannot be looked at as being 100% gay or straight, and this brought into light the idea, at least, that their may be a gradation.
4. It blew a lot of stereotypes out of the water.
5. It totally pissed off homophobes, particularly the Christian right, which is a hilarious thing to do, and a never-ending fun time. :lol: Just tell any Falwell wanna-be that some of his behavior might be gay and watch him squirm!

Things I didn’t like about it:

1. His results were skewed. His subjects were not randomly selected; most were prisoners or volunteers. Many today have good reason to believe that his results regarding incidences of homosexuality were exaggerated because of this and other possible reasons (especially his statistics).
2. The scale assumes that there exists a “pure homosexuality” and a “pure heterosexuality,” which so far has been totally subjective. There is no imperical way to determine what is “pure” either way. This leads to the other numbers on the scale also being totally subjective as well. What one scientist thinks is a 2, another might think a 3 on the scale, and so on.
3. When one takes a “sexual survey” (the usual method of obtaining data), the scale doesn’t seem to take into account environmental, psychological, and other factors that I think are vitally important to the understanding of sexuality. Example, one male might perform an oral sex act on another male, and this might rate a #6 on the scale. However, that oral sex act could have been done to gain protection in a prison environment, and have little to do with homosexual motivation by ‘giver’ or the receiver even. Then, if the researcher, through proper questioning, decides to take those factors into account, then they have to subjectively place that act somewhere on the scale; again with the subjectivity. This is where I find the scale a bit ironic. The hypothesis that “people can’t be placed in one exacting category or another and that orientation is more of a continuum ,” relies on very subjective data that essentially attempts to place behavior (and emotions, etc.) in an exacting category and not on a continuum.
4. This research also tends to put many things in a sexual context that in my opinion don’t belong in a sexual context. Example, a researcher might put my studying of the male human figure in art classes in a sexual context, existing somewhere on the subjective scale. I don’t think that this would not really belong, as it has little to do with my sexuality. Yes I know that a researcher might say, “Ah, but it does…how did you feel when studying the figure, etc.” And, if I were to make the mistake of saying, for examples sake, in a nonsexual manner that the male human figure is a beautiful work of art, I might score a bit higher on the scale; when this thought might have little to do with sexuality or sexual attraction. You see, a lot of assumptions have to be made when trying to place something on a subjective scale such as this, leading to the great possibility of inaccuracies.
5. This last one isn’t really a critique on Kinsey, but it is on those who tend to use this research: people tend to look at this scale, and put “homosexuality” on an “even” scale with “heterosexuality” regarding population and history. This propagates very strange ideas that people are just as much “gay” as they are “straight.” This is totally false. Even according to Kinsey’s inflated statistics, he even determined that the majority of the population leaned towards heterosexuality. Homosexual behavior (or on the scale leaning towards) has ALWAYS been a minority of the populus. This doesn’t mean that all people shouldn’t have equal rights (as minority groups should). What it does mean is that one can’t use Kinsey to propigate wildly false idea’s that there is just as much “gay” behavior as “straight” behavior, or at one time everyone had sex with everyone until the evil Christians came along and spoiled the fun.

Can you come up with an example to describe your objection to Kinsey?

Now, Upnorth, you asked for an example to describe my objection to Kinsey researchers, so I’ll give you some other then my explaination above. I have seen surveys ask questions related too “frequency of sex,” “frequency of masterbation,” “if you had difficulty with arousal” “How often you look at pornographic material.” They also ask you to rate your arousal levels with certain things, many not even nessicarily sexual. One question that blew my mind asks you to pick between liking to watch movies more then once or not. Another asks you to rate “if you worry about making mistakes or not.” Anyways, often the questions chosen by the researchers are very subjective questions that cannot possibly get deep into ones psychological makeup enough to determine the ‘sexuality’ of the behavior as related to the question. Most of it relies, again, on subjective reasoning and assumptions.

My personal opinion is that many people like to only accept research that fits their worldview. A Christian-right extremist may condemn Kinsey’s work as having no value at all, because the thought that the “sin” of homosexuality not being black/white is very frightening to them. A extreme gay-rights activist may want very badly to believe that everyone is “gay” to different degree’s, and that sexual preference knows no boundries; they will therefore put a lot of weight on Kinsey’s theories.

I have no agenda in this; I am just trying to learn. From that perspective, I see a lot of good that Kinsey’s research had done. I also see that there are a lot of holes in his theories. My personal belief is that Kinsey’s theory overcomplicates the issue of “sexual preference.” It is fairly easy for most people to determine which gender one PREFERS (or if they are Bi, or Bi with a leaning preference). One may have a history of behavior that might be considered contradicting to that preference, and one may have tendencies that lean towards a different preference, however NONE OF THAT REALLY MATTERS when deciding ones preference. At any given period of time (and for most this stays consistant) you prefer what you prefer, making it not difficult to categorize and speak in terms of “gay” “hetro” or “Bi.”

Now, anyone’s personal beliefs aside, one can still have a conversation about “history of homosexuality” or the “gay marriage ban” using generally accepted terms like “homosexual,” even if one ascribes to the Kinsey scale. Hetro would just be 0-2, Bi could be 2-4, and Homo would be 4-6. So, regardless of one ascribing to Kinsey, you can still have these conversations and debates using generally accepted terms for the sake of the discussion. “Homosexual” and Heterosexual” categories still exist, even if you ascribe to the idea that there are different degrees. Refusing to come to any agreement on terms needed for a discussion only clouds the issue so that no logical discourse can occur. This is the root of what my problem was in that last thread.

:supcool:
Paul

 

[Makalakumu]

See, here is where your actually making assumptions yourself. Your assuming you know what motivates the "frat jock" to enjoy watching two women together. Your trying to tie it to an attraction of same sex relationships, when it could just be a horny guy who likes to see women naked and in such cases believes "two is better than one". Your speaking about not assuming or labeling sexuality and yet you do it yourself to make your point.

7sm

Yes, I see your point about labeling. Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling. Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all...

Paul

Very nice point and good post.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes, I see your point about labeling. Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling. Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all.

I wanted to add on to this but ran out of time while I was getting the kids off to daycare...I apologize for quoting myself.

7starmantis

Two girls may be better then one to a horney frat guy, but there is also something else at play. There is a willingness to watch (or participate with) two people of the same gender as they enact an act that would be considered by all of us under the current conventions to be homosexual. This does not mean that the frat guy wants to sleep with other men. It means that he is more comfortable with homosexual relationships and on some level desires them (at least with the opposite sex).

Now this may come at a shock, but some people do not desire this at all. Two is NOT better then one and they do not desire to watch or participate in this sort of experience at all. Their preference is one man one woman and that is it. I would say that the above example is a step away from this.

 

[Flatlander]

The hypothesis that “people can’t be placed in one exacting category or another and that orientation is more of a continuum ,” relies on very subjective data that essentially attempts to place behavior (and emotions, etc.) in an exacting category and not on a continuum.

Paul, nice insight. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Now, anyone’s personal beliefs aside, one can still have a conversation about “history of homosexuality” or the “gay marriage ban” using generally accepted terms like “homosexual,” even if one ascribes to the Kinsey scale. Hetro would just be 0-2, Bi could be 2-4, and Homo would be 4-6. So, regardless of one ascribing to Kinsey, you can still have these conversations and debates using generally accepted terms for the sake of the discussion. “Homosexual” and Heterosexual” categories still exist, even if you ascribe to the idea that there are different degrees. Refusing to come to any agreement on terms needed for a discussion only clouds the issue so that no logical discourse can occur. This is the root of what my problem was in that last thread.

Alright, I'm buying it. Your a good salesmen, Paul. :asian:

Here is my point...

Can you differentiate sexual preference? Can you clearly place another individual in groups commonly known as "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" in ALL circumstances?

This question is designed to separate theory from practice. The theory or the labeling that occurs in conversation so we can talk about this issue is based on a classification scheme.

homosexual

sexually attracted to members of your own sex

heterosexual

1. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.
2. Of or relating to different sexes.

Bisexual

1. Of or relating to both sexes.
2. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

As a classification scheme that works in practice on the entire pool of humanity, this is an inaccurate and imprecise way of describing the reality of human sexuality. For instance, if all of our sexual behaviors were taken into account, then most individuals would fall in a bisexual catagory. This makes the bisexual label a broad catagory full of gradiations that the word itself does not take into account.

In practice this muddiness translates to classification in real life. On the street it is impossible to define someone's orientation. Based on what someone says, it can be difficult to define someone's orientation. And in your own thoughts it can be difficult to classify yourself.

Here are some examples...

When I was growing up I had a friend who's parents split rather suddenly. No one expected it but it wasn't really a surprise the majority of us were from divorced families. Anyways my friend was really upset and did not want to talk about it. Made sense to all of us, for it was a traumatic experience and something we had been through ourselves. It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that we found out that dad left mom for another guy. I knew this man for years and never would have guessed or read that in him. He didn't want anyone to know so he hid it well. Maybe if I would have been older and more mature I would have picked up on it but I don't think so.

A man is married, he has two kids. He's been in love with women twice in his life and has slept with both of those women. This man has also had more casual sexual relationships...some of them included more then one people and the sexual ratio was not always weighted in the female direction. This man has made friends with others who have formed same sex relationships. If they happen to be women, he is able to appraise other women sexually. If they happen to be men, he is able to appraise other men sexually. This man also has watched porn depicting same sex and opposite sex relationships. In movies, this man is moved by strong female roles. He is also moved by strong male roles attempted to emulate some of them at various times in his life...

Based on the way talk about sexuality, it can be very difficult to put these examples into the above catagories. I am very surprised that people think that it is so easy...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Deuce]

I wanted to add on to this but ran out of time while I was getting the kids off to daycare...I apologize for quoting myself.

7starmantis

Two girls may be better then one to a horney frat guy, but there is also something else at play. There is a willingness to watch (or participate with) two people of the same gender as they enact an act that would be considered by all of us under the current conventions to be homosexual. This does not mean that the frat guy wants to sleep with other men. It means that he is more comfortable with homosexual relationships and on some level desires them (at least with the opposite sex).

Now this may come at a shock, but some people do not desire this at all. Two is NOT better then one and they do not desire to watch or participate in this sort of experience at all. Their preference is one man one woman and that is it. I would say that the above example is a step away from this.

I agree that "girl on girl" porn is homosexual behavior, but I think a man who watches it would be more heterosexual than a man who watches "girl on man" heterosexual porn. Some men are such homophobes, that they freak out when the see another man in the nude. I'm not saying that men who watch the "girl on man" porns are homosexuals, but maybe just more comfortable with their own sexuality. And in my opinion, a male watching the "girl on girl" porn is leaning more towards hetero and not in the other direction on the scale. Just my opinion.

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis

Two girls may be better then one to a horney frat guy, but there is also something else at play. There is a willingness to watch (or participate with) two people of the same gender as they enact an act that would be considered by all of us under the current conventions to be homosexual. This does not mean that the frat guy wants to sleep with other men. It means that he is more comfortable with homosexual relationships and on some level desires them (at least with the opposite sex).

Now this may come at a shock, but some people do not desire this at all. Two is NOT better then one and they do not desire to watch or participate in this sort of experience at all. Their preference is one man one woman and that is it. I would say that the above example is a step away from this.

While I agree that there are some who do not actively participate, or even like the idea of two women (speaking of men here) it doesn't prove that the intentions of all those who do like two women together is that of same sex relationships. Most guys I know who enjoy or fantasize about two women together either with the guy or without is from a completely "selfish" perspective because they can receive "more" pleasure from two than one. The fact that some do not like this "fantasy" doesn't lend itself to the idea that those who do are accepting of same sex relationships. See most times a huge double standard exists within these people who like this scenario. Lesbians are "cool" while gay men are disgusting. This homophobic thought process, in my opinion, comes from these types of perceptions you are posting. See, the frat guy likes the idea of two "hot" young, beautiful women together, its not just the liking of same sex relationships, its simply that the frat guy gets to see more "hot naked chicks" in this scenario. The same person wouldn't like the idea of two women together if the women were what the guy would consider not attractive. Also remember that there are those who do not like the idea of oral sex either, but that doesn't take them away from the "straight" group either. It seems that you are relating much more "behavior" and "perception" to being gay than I do. You seem to say you do not agree with stereotypes and labels, and yet you seem to bend ideas of sexual behavior to "mean" one is more gay or straight. In my opinion that is a contradiction. The fact that human sexuality can include many, many scenarios and different actions is only proof of our diversity. Clumping a "kinky" or active (healthy) sex life into a "gay" group is incorrect in my opinion. Clumping it into a "straight" or "bisexual" one would be as well. You’re widening the boundaries of the accepted term of gay or straight to include things everyone does, so that way, everyone is still gay to some degree and therefore cannot dislike or not accept gay people. That’s simply the wrong way to approach the issue, in my opinion.

7sm

 

[loki09789]

Yes, I see your point about labeling. Even trying to find a different way to talk about it is labeling. Yet, the above example still demonstrates an interest in same sex relationships because there are individuals who do not like this scenario at all...

Paul

Very nice point and good post.

But, creating categories/definitions/terms for the sake of discussion is the root of a rational/topical discussion.

By no means am I saying that my definition of 'gay' for the sake of this discussion is the only possible one. I present it so that we can establish a common ground for the sake of discussion.

No one has said, implied or insinuated that they were more 'right' or that they were trying to impose a 'true definition' just a commonly accepted terminology for the sake of moving forward about the topic of Differenciation.

Any definitive lines/terms are arbitrary and culturally/group imposes.

Why is it 'gay/queer/fag/homosexual' and not some other terms? No real 'natural' reason, just the terms of the day/period in history.

Applying a 'scientific' mentallity, I would say the simplest way to clarify things is to base 'preference' based on some criteria of observable behavior/statements. Remember that 'preference' doesn't exclude the idea that there might be 'dominant' and 'recessive' preferences.

How do you know a person is a visual learner/auditory learner/kinesthetic learner? Observable behavior and 'preferences.' That tendency and possibly preference is a combination of nature and nurture - I would say 'preference' on this topic could be 'defined' about the same way.

 

[Makalakumu]

While I agree that there are some who do not actively participate, or even like the idea of two women (speaking of men here) it doesn't prove that the intentions of all those who do like two women together is that of same sex relationships. Most guys I know who enjoy or fantasize about two women together either with the guy or without is from a completely "selfish" perspective because they can receive "more" pleasure from two than one.

Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship. Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships. The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling. Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.

The fact that some do not like this "fantasy" doesn't lend itself to the idea that those who do are accepting of same sex relationships. See most times a huge double standard exists within these people who like this scenario. Lesbians are "cool" while gay men are disgusting. This homophobic thought process, in my opinion, comes from these types of perceptions you are posting.

I don't see this connection. Can you elaborate?

See, the frat guy likes the idea of two "hot" young, beautiful women together, its not just the liking of same sex relationships, its simply that the frat guy gets to see more "hot naked chicks" in this scenario.

If that is the case, then why doesn't it stop at the strip show? Why do they have to perform sexual acts on each other?

The same person wouldn't like the idea of two women together if the women were what the guy would consider not attractive.

Isn't that another matter all together?

Also remember that there are those who do not like the idea of oral sex either, but that doesn't take them away from the "straight" group either.

I agree with this and I can see where you are going with this.

It seems that you are relating much more "behavior" and "perception" to being gay than I do. You seem to say you do not agree with stereotypes and labels, and yet you seem to bend ideas of sexual behavior to "mean" one is more gay or straight. In my opinion that is a contradiction.

I think this may explain why classifying these behaviors becomes difficult. Devining the meaning behind the behavior is most always going to be an assumption. I have a few books about some scientific research into this subject. "Why we do it" by Niles Eldridge is one that gives a different breakdown of sexual behaviors and it puts them into an evolutionary context.

The fact that human sexuality can include many, many scenarios and different actions is only proof of our diversity. Clumping a "kinky" or active (healthy) sex life into a "gay" group is incorrect in my opinion.

I would agree with this statement to a certain extent. I think there are gradiations of behavior that are not being taken into account when the above is done. For instance, I don't think a person sleeps with another person of their same sex without taking many other steps. Could some of the behaviors we are talking about be related to those steps?

Clumping it into a "straight" or "bisexual" one would be as well. You’re widening the boundaries of the accepted term of gay or straight to include things everyone does, so that way, everyone is still gay to some degree and therefore cannot dislike or not accept gay people. That’s simply the wrong way to approach the issue, in my opinion.

I am widening the boundaries, but not to make everyone gay. I am trying to show shared behaviors in order show similarities. This, I think, will lead to more tolerance of the differences.

 

[loki09789]

Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship. Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships. The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling. Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.

NOT if you are talking about the 'relationship' between the MALE viewer/voyeur and the FEMALES that he is watching having sex. The MAN is getting aroused watching women.

Remember the focus is on the MAN watching the WOMEN not on the two women interacting (and even there it doesn't mean that the motive is 'love' or 'violence' so much as 'pay.')

I could see where a MAN watching MAN ON MAN sexual activity and becoming aroused as an indication that there might be 'homosexual' tendencies because the gender of the viewer and the subjects being viewed is the same.

 

[7starmantis]

Two women together having sex is a same sex relationship. Fantasizing or participating in scenario show an increased interest in same sex relationships. The fact that they derive more pleasure from this experience is telling. Again, this does not mean that the guy in question wants to sleep with another man.

Yes you’re correct, but I think your missing the point. The "turn on" a guy would get from watching a woman on woman act isn't exciting because of the same sex relationship, it’s exciting because he's watching women in sexual acts. You’re just a little off. You are relating the excitement to the relationship, while the excitement is actually just the "naked women". You know they say chocolate is a substitute for sex. If I see an unwrapped chocolate bar I may want it, right? It may make my mouth water and make me crave chocolate. If I see an unwrapped chocolate bar on top of another unwrapped chocolate bar, my craving would probably increase or even double. See, I'm not craving chocolate on top of other chocolate; I'm still just simply craving chocolate. Back to the discussion, they guy watching two women isn't craving a same sex relationship or excited by theirs, but exciting because he is seeing "more boobs" if you will. I think many times the guy is thinking of himself in that situation, and that would be very heterosexual. Sorry I know that analogy was stupid, but it made my point

I don't see this connection. Can you elaborate?

Sure, what I'm getting at is that that "frat guy" we were talking about may think lesbians are "cool" because it turns him on to see naked women, and in my last analogy we see that two naked women may increase his desire. Two men together would most likely not turn him on. That shows a heterosexual "Frat guy". It doesn't show an accepting or longing for same sex relationships, otherwise the two men scenario would also excite him.

If that is the case, then why doesn't it stop at the strip show? Why do they have to perform sexual acts on each other?

Many times it does stop at the strip show. Sometimes it goes to them performing acts on each other, while other times it even includes them performing sexual acts on him. This is where your human sexuality differences come into play, however they don’t necessarily mean a change in preference. This is sad, I actually asked a buddy of mine about this to get an outside opinion. We agree that the attraction of watching two women perform sexual acts on each other is probably more along the lines of exciting because he gets to see a naked woman having sexual acts done while also seeing a naked woman performing sexual acts. Its not that the acts are same sex as much as it is him getting to see what he desires....women. If your post was correct, he would be just as excited watching two men perform sexual acts on each other, and in most instances that is not the case.

Isn't that another matter all together?

I don’t think so at all. It shows what he finds desirable. If it was same sex relationships that he enjoyed, it would matter what the women looked like, or even if they were women.

I am widening the boundaries, but not to make everyone gay. I am trying to show shared behaviors in order show similarities. This, I think, will lead to more tolerance of the differences.

Ok, you’re not trying to make everyone gay, but make everyone share similarities. I like women, one of my buddies likes men. There aren't similarities in our preference, they are different. I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems you’re almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what you’re doing, but it certainly seems likely. We agree that differences are beautiful, so why strive so hard to blur those differences?

7sm

 

[Deuce]

I have to agree with 7sm on this issue. I think the word "preference" is key in this discussion. It's up to the individual to differentiate their sexual preference. I prefer women, plain and simple. I'm straight and always have been. I've never considered engaging in homosexual relationships. I'm not a homophobe but I just know that I'm straight. The way I act, dress, talk, etc. does not reflect on the fact that I prefer women. I know a guy who fits almost every stereotyped trait of homosexuals, but defines himself as straight because he prefers women. I'm sure there are peolpe who have a problem defining themselves in one group or another, but many people have no problem defining their sexual preference.

It's interesting that most of the discussion on this thread is focused on hetero and homosexual issues. What about bisexuals? If someones preference for men and women are fairly equal, then one might consider themselves a bisexual. If they have a stronger preference for a particular sex, then they may classify themselves accordingly. From my experience when people talk about their sexuality they don't say "well, I like both sexes but I guess I'm more of a homosexual." Typically they would say bisexual. Is the term "bisexual" not sufficient to define the preference of people who fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, if they choose to define themselves that way?

 

[loki09789]

I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems you’re almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what you’re doing, but it certainly seems likely.
7sm

We are BORG, resistance if futile, prepare to be Kinseythized......

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes you’re correct, but I think your missing the point. The "turn on" a guy would get from watching a woman on woman act isn't exciting because of the same sex relationship, it’s exciting because he's watching women in sexual acts. You’re just a little off. You are relating the excitement to the relationship, while the excitement is actually just the "naked women".

I talked to my brother about this. He is a frat boy and he posed the question to his frat. The consensus was that its not just naked women. You can go and see multiple naked women at any strip club and they usually have naked women at there parties. The difference the performance of sexual a sexual relationship...and my brother made a good point, among his more homophobic frat brothers, an attempt is made to make this somehow not "gay". It's just naked women kissing and having sex like lesbians, "more boobs" if you will. The reality is that this is a homosexual relationship in action even if the women go back to heterosexual relationships afterward and some people are just more comfortable with that sort of thing.

Back to the discussion, they guy watching two women isn't craving a same sex relationship or excited by theirs, but exciting because he is seeing "more boobs" if you will. I think many times the guy is thinking of himself in that situation, and that would be very heterosexual. Sorry I know that analogy was stupid, but it made my point

I got to "more boobs" and busted a gut. Beyond that, though, I have to disagree and furthermore, imagining or participating in this relationship is, in a very real sense, participating in the homosexual relationship of the two women. Even if it occurs in a heterosexual way for you...and they may even be turned on by you, but something about their homosexual acts turns you on...

Sure, what I'm getting at is that that "frat guy" we were talking about may think lesbians are "cool" because it turns him on to see naked women, and in my last analogy we see that two naked women may increase his desire. Two men together would most likely not turn him on. That shows a heterosexual "Frat guy". It doesn't show an accepting or longing for same sex relationships, otherwise the two men scenario would also excite him.

I agree, one finding erotic the homosexual relationship between two females does not mean that one will find erotic the homosexual relationship between two males. This does not change the fact that one finds the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and I don't think that it demonstrates any homophobia per se as long as you recognize the fact that both females are participating in a homosexual act.

Many times it does stop at the strip show. Sometimes it goes to them performing acts on each other, while other times it even includes them performing sexual acts on him. This is where your human sexuality differences come into play, however they don’t necessarily mean a change in preference. This is sad, I actually asked a buddy of mine about this to get an outside opinion. We agree that the attraction of watching two women perform sexual acts on each other is probably more along the lines of exciting because he gets to see a naked woman having sexual acts done while also seeing a naked woman performing sexual acts. Its not that the acts are same sex as much as it is him getting to see what he desires....women. If your post was correct, he would be just as excited watching two men perform sexual acts on each other, and in most instances that is not the case.

Dude, I've been doing the same thing! And I can say that there is a clear line between finding the homosexual relationship of two females erotic and the relationship between two men. Finding homosexuality erotic in one instance does not mean you will find it erotic in the other. Yet this does not change the fact that one if finding erotic the same sort of thing that lesbians prefer.

Ok, you’re not trying to make everyone gay, but make everyone share similarities. I like women, one of my buddies likes men. There aren't similarities in our preference, they are different. I think true acceptance is recognizing that and understanding it. It seems you’re almost having trouble accepting, so you need to make them more like yourself, so you can then accept them easily. I'm not trying to insult you or say this is what you’re doing, but it certainly seems likely. We agree that differences are beautiful, so why strive so hard to blur those differences?

This may just be a personal difference between you and I. I like to look for the common ground between me and my fellow humans and I think that ALL of us share something in each other. Some people don't care about this sort of thing at all and that is okay. Neither of us is saying difference is bad. All I am trying to say in this case is that understanding the similarities in our preferences makes stronger connections between us all. I think that this would lead to more tolerance in the end.

 

[Makalakumu]

We are BORG, resistance if futile, prepare to be Kinseythized......

Oh please...this coming from someone who harps about consensus constantly...now that is irony.