Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gender & Sexuality

329 replies to this topic
Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    The Writer

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#61

Posted 01 January 2016 - 01:16 PM Edited by Ziggy455, 01 January 2016 - 01:17 PM.

This is a debate that I've had with my friends on countless occasions. The term Bisexuality is coined to be an attraction of both genders, male or female. However, it seems a majority of my friends believe the old classic belief that "bisexuality does not exist, and you're just a gay in denial," or the other, bisexual people are just greedy and therefore do not exist wholly. 

 

I've wondered for years why some people feel like this, and how serious bisexuality is taken as sexuality goes. I've never really had a problem expressing my own sexuality, showing attraction to both females, transgender men, and women, and rarely, men, and never really had to deal with the turbulent wondering of whether or not my sexuality meant I liked one gender, or another. I just sort always felt an attraction to people, regardless of gender. I know I'm leaning more towards pansexual here, and I digress. 

 

I've always been curious as to why people don't seem to take bisexuality serious, or assume that it is just an excuse for gay people to give their family and friends hope that they one day will make the right choice. Whenever I have sat down and the discussion of this has come up, it always seems I find people who really do believe that we are limited to, biologically, to a single gender, and that is the be-all-and-end-all. 

 

What do you guys think? Is bisexuality just a fallacy for people who need to suit up and pick a side, or is it possible? 

  • Gay Tony likes this

GTA36362355
  • GTA36362355

    moving before it's dead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • None

#62

Posted 01 January 2016 - 01:26 PM

Well there are bisexual animals so are they confused animals?

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    The Writer

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#63

Posted 01 January 2016 - 01:33 PM

Well there are bisexual animals so are they confused animals?

 

There are animals that have bisexual natures, but most of my friends believe that humans are not built that way, when we clearly are.


GTA36362355
  • GTA36362355

    moving before it's dead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • None

#64

Posted 01 January 2016 - 08:34 PM Edited by Mister Kay, 01 January 2016 - 08:35 PM.

when we clearly are..what? Confused?

GreenOnions
  • GreenOnions

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 May 2015
  • None

#65

Posted 01 January 2016 - 08:40 PM

Strictly speaking, I'm inclined to think that a high number of people, perhaps even a plurality, are bisexual to some degree. That being said, I'm classifying as "bisexual" the many, many people for whom the less dominant attraction never stretches beyond idle curiosity.

Many may be inclined to regard self-proclaimed bisexuals skeptically because the general expectation of a person is that they will eventually "settle down" with a long-term spouse or partner, and remain in a monogamous relationship with that person so long as they are involved. Until one partner dies or until an "official" (though not necessarily legal) separation or divorce. If one partner in an "established" relationship violates the monogamous aspect of said relationship without their partner's prior knowledge or consent, most would consider the "cheating" partner to have been in the wrong, and their partner entirely justified to seek an end to the relationship.

With that in mind, I can understand how many might be inclined to think that someone who is attracted to men and women more or less equally will have a much harder time maintaining a monogamous relationship, even to the point where they could be totally incompatible with this conventional arrangement. Again, I can understand where that comes from, but it still strikes me as a weak argument. After all, plenty of heterosexuals and homosexuals in monogamous relationships will encounter people whom they are physically attracted to, but won't act on these desires out of respect/loyalty to their partner.

Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#66

Posted 01 January 2016 - 09:00 PM

I think there is a needed distinction between sexuality in a physical sense and in a romantic sense. If a girl makes out with her friend at a bar to turn a bunch of guys on, does that make it a sexual display? Sure, but there isn't really always a corresponding romantic sentiment behind it, and they both may have a strong romantic interest in the opposite sex and none at all for the same sex, despite the sexual interaction.

So to me I can see why people think many "bisexuals" are not so much confused but just haven't found their "preference" yet and I think that's the real square peg society wants people to fall into, because I think for a large part most people do develop a preference--whether it be the same or opposite sex. Then add into that many felt ambiguous about their own sensuality until they found what their preference was, so they project their own experience onto yours.
  •  dice likes this

ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#67

Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:43 AM Edited by Kristian., 02 January 2016 - 12:45 AM.

I came here expecting at least some mention of gender identity which to me seems to be a separate concept to gender as a societal construct (AKA gender roles), although it's probably impossible to separate the two.

 

This is where the conversation gets really confusing to me and many others and this is no doubt the source of so much controversy and dispute among people. If the definition for the word gender is supposed to be as loose as some people want it to be it seems to me that the word loses it's meaning. I could claim that I am a woman right now simply on the basis that "I feel like a woman" and no one could really dispute that I am a woman, right? This isn't even the confusing part. What does it even mean to feel like a woman (subjectively) or a man? I've asked a transgender person this and they haven't been able to tell me. f*ck it, even I don't know what it feels like to be a man and I identify as one. There isn't one thing in my subjective experience that I can point to and say "that's what it feels like to be a man".

  • Gay Tony likes this

Raj Brunner
  • Raj Brunner

    "There is no knowledge that is not power"

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2015
  • United-States

#68

Posted 02 January 2016 - 04:41 AM

For some reason I just don't understand this argument.

slimeball supreme
  • slimeball supreme

    🔺

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2013
  • Australia
  • Best Closet Furry 2016

#69

Posted 02 January 2016 - 06:41 AM

The whole argument is an insecure bullsh*t fallacy.

Of course it exists.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#70

Posted 02 January 2016 - 09:06 AM

oh gee another thread on sexuality.

this never gets old :bored:

 

also; bisexuality absolutely exists.

OPs question is hopelessly outdated.

 

/thread

  • Darth Absentis likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#71

Posted 02 January 2016 - 09:56 AM

Merged the two threads on sexuality

Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#72

Posted 03 January 2016 - 12:03 AM

I don't even agree with the butthurt guys that these dubbel norms are bad. These dubbel norms relate to concepts like male disposability talked about earlier, and are inevitable.

It's inevitable that men will be seen as too good at violence to be hurt by a woman, or that bald men be made to feel bad about themselves? Seems like very specific behaviour to me. 

 

 

 

The point is though, that feminists cherry pick male privileges, and don't look at the corresponding downsides (which can outweigh the privileges that correspond).

No, they don't. tbh the only reason you're aware of these men's issues is because of feminist work. Anyone at all that works to see justice for men's issues readily admits that they owe their careers to feminist women. 

 

 

 

If you always focus on your fundamental lack, it will make you an unpleasant and dysfunctional person, like radical feminists are. 

I don't think you have much of a conception of what radical feminism is. It isn't 'feminism, to the left of me' it's a set of viewpoints that fall outside of third wave feminism. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#73

Posted 03 January 2016 - 01:35 PM

 

I don't even agree with the butthurt guys that these dubbel norms are bad. These dubbel norms relate to concepts like male disposability talked about earlier, and are inevitable.

 

It's inevitable that men will be seen as too good at violence to be hurt by a woman, or that bald men be made to feel bad about themselves? Seems like very specific behaviour to me. 

 

It's inevitable that due to the fact that it is "women and children first", it is men's responsibility to protect women, and thus it matters more when a woman is in physical danger than when a man is. But you focus on the flip side of the coin, which is that men don't want to see themselves as being able to be hurt by women, which is true as well. The fact that there are different norms relating to what is offensive to say to a man or a woman, is inevitable too. Because women generally are seen as more emotional, and less rational, (which are traits that cancel each other out to a certain extent), and as emotion implies vulnerability, it is somewhat inevitable they will be protected far more than men from criticism. But relating to the Dove commercial, it also has to do with that we accept vanity in women more than vanity in men.

 

 

 

 

The point is though, that feminists cherry pick male privileges, and don't look at the corresponding downsides (which can outweigh the privileges that correspond).

 

No, they don't. tbh the only reason you're aware of these men's issues is because of feminist work. Anyone at all that works to see justice for men's issues readily admits that they owe their careers to feminist women.

 

You don't even address my point. What does it even matter where who got what point from? I don't have it from feminists, I'm sure, but it is possible that due to the fact that the term 'feminist' has no clear meaning whasoever, some have been used by people who call themselves 'feminists' as well. Karen Straughan is an 'anti-feminist'.. But it doesn't matter anyway.

 

 

 

 

If you always focus on your fundamental lack, it will make you an unpleasant and dysfunctional person, like radical feminists are. 

 

I don't think you have much of a conception of what radical feminism is. It isn't 'feminism, to the left of me' it's a set of viewpoints that fall outside of third wave feminism. 

I don't think you have much of a conception of how useless it is to have a semantic discussion completely unrelated to any point I made.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    I'm throwin stones at you man

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#74

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:25 AM

It's inevitable that due to the fact that it is "women and children first",

This doesn't exist outside of the titanic, although to the extent that it does it's an aspect of patriarchy so I'm not really seeing your point. 

 

 

 

But relating to the Dove commercial, it also has to do with that we accept vanity in women more than vanity in men.

Again, we encourage women to care more about their appearance. In other societies it's the opposite.

 

 

 

You don't even address my point.

I did, your point was that feminists don't understand 'the flipside' of male privilege when they are of course the only people who care or understand. 

 

 

 

What does it even matter where who got what point from?

Well if your whole point is that feminists are ignorant of men's issues then it's obviously relevant if our understanding of men's issues comes from feminist work. 

 

 

 

Karen Straughan is an 'anti-feminist'.

She's an MRA.

 

 

 

I don't think you have much of a conception of how useless it is to have a semantic discussion completely unrelated to any point I made.

I mean if you're going to call mainstream views 'radical' you should be prepared to be corrected. 


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#75

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:45 AM

"our understanding of men's issues comes from feminist work" Do you mean recent feminist work? Mainstream feminism today seems very different to what it was back in the day.

 

Anyway. I thought we were discussing something else entirely.


Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#76

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:59 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 04 January 2016 - 10:05 AM.

From my understanding feminism hasn't really done that much to dismantle the traditional concept of the "disposable male" as it has things related to giving women more power, freedom, and the ability to direct their own paths in life. If anything these days men are seen as more useless (and violent of course).

 

Homelessness is more of a men's issue. Whereas you see feminists focus more on domestic violence.

  • Eutyphro likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#77

Posted 04 January 2016 - 02:26 AM

 

It's inevitable that due to the fact that it is "women and children first",

 

This doesn't exist outside of the titanic, although to the extent that it does it's an aspect of patriarchy so I'm not really seeing your point. 

 

Wars don't exist.. Life threateningly dangerous work doesn't exist.. right..

 

 

 

 

But relating to the Dove commercial, it also has to do with that we accept vanity in women more than vanity in men.

 

Again, we encourage women to care more about their appearance. In other societies it's the opposite.

Sure, but I didn't argue that how vanity is treated in the West is a universal human norm. Off course it is not. The norm that I argued for being non culturally relative in an earlier post is male disposability. But also traits that relate to caringness, considering taking care of children is something women are biologically predisposed to be good at, relate to women more than to men in all cultures. And also consider that being caring/emotional and being considered objective/rational, is at odds with one another. Feminists solve that issue by saying rationality and objectivity don't exist, and that natural science is racist and sexist.

 

 

 

 

You don't even address my point.

 

I did, your point was that feminists don't understand 'the flipside' of male privilege when they are of course the only people who care or understand. 

 

They really don't. The main reason they don't, is that they don't analyze the fact that these 'fip sides' exist as women being massively privileged in many ways, because feminists are disingenuous by only comparing themselves with regards to privilige to the most high class men. The reason for this is because most feminists are higher class females.

 

 

 

 

What does it even matter where who got what point from?

 

Well if your whole point is that feminists are ignorant of men's issues then it's obviously relevant if our understanding of men's issues comes from feminist work. 

 

I didn't make a study of every single thing every person who calls themself 'feminist' ever published. What I'm saying relates to what academic feminists generally agree on, which doesn't involve ideas on the ways in which women are privileged over men.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you have much of a conception of how useless it is to have a semantic discussion completely unrelated to any point I made.

 

I mean if you're going to call mainstream views 'radical' you should be prepared to be corrected. 

Where did I call mainstream views 'radical'? I said 'radical feminism', by which I meant those feminist who see gender as a historical construct to oppress women which should be destroyed, which includes a lot of academic feminists. That's a radical view, but it is not the mainstream view at all. The mainstream doesn't want to destroy gender, but wants women to aspire to male norms to functon better in capitalism. I've made these points dozens of times now, and still your interpretation of them is what I said put in a blender and put back together.

  • Abel. and Gay Tony like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#78

Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:05 AM

Please don't hate on me for this, but I personally believe that men are supposed to be attracted to women and women attracted to men. Allow me to use a short old saying:
Opposites attract.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#79

Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:26 PM Edited by El Diablo, 04 January 2016 - 09:43 PM.

Please don't hate on me for this, but I personally believe that men are supposed to be attracted to women and women attracted to men. Allow me to use a short old saying:
Opposites attract.

and allow me to use an even shorter, even older saying:

 

you're stupid.

 

but seriously.

you can't preface sh/t with "oh, don't laugh at this" or "hey, don't take this the wrong way but." that never works. I dunno about everybody else but I'm not gonna' promise to take something a certain way just because you've asked me to before you've said it. once you say it, I'm pretty much gonna' judge it. this is D&D and it's open-field. open-mic night, if you will.

 

men and women aren't supposed to do anything other than whatever makes them happy.

assuming no direct harm is involved.

  • Android, Femme Fatale and Darth Absentis like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#80

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:00 PM

Please don't hate on me for this, but I personally believe that men are supposed to be attracted to women and women attracted to men. Allow me to use a short old saying:
Opposites attract.

and allow me to use an even shorter, even older saying:
 
you're stupid.
 
but seriously.
you can't preface sh/t with "oh, don't laugh at this" or "hey, don't take this the wrong way but." that never works. I dunno about everybody else but I'm not gonna' promise to take something a certain way just because you've asked me to before you've said it. once you say it, I'm pretty much gonna' judge it. this is D&D and it's open-field. open-mic night, if you will.
 
men and women aren't supposed to do anything other than whatever makes them happy.
assuming no direct harm is involved.
Ha! f*ck you, who do you think you are to tell me what I'm supposed to think?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#81

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:07 PM Edited by El Diablo, 04 January 2016 - 10:07 PM.

I ain't nobody bro.

but my mind isn't anywhere near as narrow as to believe I know what other people are "supposed" to be doing in their personal lives.

  • Zook, Melchior and Darth Absentis like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#82

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:09 PM

I ain't nobody bro.
but my mind isn't anywhere near as narrow as to believe I know what other people are "supposed" to be doing in their personal lives.

So I'm narrow-minded for having an opinion? Get out of here.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#83

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:14 PM

yeah, no; not for having an opinion.

 

you're narrow minded for having a narrow minded opinion.

get it?

  • Melchior and Darth Absentis like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#84

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:25 PM

yeah, no; not for having an opinion.
 
you're narrow minded for having a narrow minded opinion.
get it?

If that's what you think, so be it. I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

Kirsty
  • Kirsty

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Administrator 2016
    Best Administrator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Most Respected 2014
    Most Helpful 2014
    Best Moderator 2013
    Most Helpful 2013

#85

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:43 PM

If that's what you think, so be it. I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

 
You can almost be forgiven for your previous statement about what gender should be attracted to who. A lot of people in the world share your 19th century opinion and no one on a gaming forum can make you change it for the sake of equality. However, why are you trying to defend said opinion by comparing the sexuality between two living beings of the same gender and a kitchen appliance?

  • El Diablo, Eutyphro, Zook and 6 others like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#86

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:52 PM

I'm actually potentially interested in him arguing about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster. That sounds more creative and engaging than the other garbage he posted.

  • Kirsty, RedDagger, Raavi and 4 others like this

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#87

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:57 PM

supposed

What do you even mean by "supposed"? Supposed according to what, unrelated old sayings that you've chosen because they apparently fit what you want to say? Supposed to because you, your divine highness, have willed it to be?
  • El Diablo, Kirsty, Darth Absentis and 1 other like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#88

Posted 04 January 2016 - 11:03 PM

I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

pretty sure no one asked you to.

bigot asshole.

  • Darth Absentis and Fonz like this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#89

Posted 05 January 2016 - 03:59 AM

I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

pretty sure no one asked you to.
bigot asshole.
Yeah, IM the asshole for having an opinion while you're trying to force "equality" upon me. I never talked sh*t about anyone, I didn't call anyone a fag or lezbo, and you're still pissed because I believe it should be man and woman. f*ck. You.

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#90

Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:11 AM

If that's what you think, so be it. I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

 
You can almost be forgiven for your previous statement about what gender should be attracted to who. A lot of people in the world share your 19th century opinion and no one on a gaming forum can make you change it for the sake of equality. However, why are you trying to defend said opinion by comparing the sexuality between two living beings of the same gender and a kitchen appliance?
It was a dumb move, I agree. But I get worked up when people try to force their views onto me when I simply state my opinion and try not to offend someone.

supposed

What do you even mean by "supposed"? Supposed according to what, unrelated old sayings that you've chosen because they apparently fit what you want to say? Supposed to because you, your divine highness, have willed it to be?
I was just stating my view on the subject. I do not care if you are a man who is attracted to men, or any gender attracted to anything. As long as it doesn't affect my life, I DONT CARE WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE ATTRACTED TO. And to some I am still a bigot.
I swear this world is full of pansies now. Always getting "triggered" and whatnot.
  • Femme Fatale likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users