Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (85,471 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

Ziggy455

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?

Edited by Ziggy455

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA36362355

Well there are bisexual animals so are they confused animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ziggy455

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA36362355

when we clearly are..what? Confused?

Edited by Mister Kay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenOnions

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

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".

Edited by Kristian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raj Brunner

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slimeball supreme

The whole argument is an insecure bullsh*t fallacy.

 

Of course it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

oh gee another thread on sexuality.

this never gets old :bored:

 

also; bisexuality absolutely exists.

OPs question is hopelessly outdated.

 

/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Merged the two threads on sexuality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

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.

Edited by Gay Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

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.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

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.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

yeah, no; not for having an opinion.

 

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

get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirsty

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.