Self-definition is one thing. Denial is quite another.
I used to be acquainted with a young man (who had been molested by an uncle and by an older brother and sister, by the way, for whatever influence that may contribute to the analysis) whose principal focus was on the girl he was interested in at the present – and was involved with her that those of us who knew him well used to use the analogy of a new-hatched chick imprinting on the first thing it sees to describe his attachment to her. This was his normal, sober self.
However, when he got drunk he wanted sex, and seemed to prefer getting it from men, and not merely as a “straight guy getting a blow job where he can” – he would reciprocate.
And then feel guilty about it afterwards.
He identified as straight – those occasions “were just drunken aberrations” from who he “really” was, in his mind.
In need of some sort of counseling. Seriously. And Cthula knows I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense at all. The only thing I can think of that would make this make sense (to me, at least) is that when he drinks, one of his alters takes over (and, as I can explain quite simply and with an interesting anecdote to boot to anyone who wants to know).
Alters do not necessarily have the same sexual tendencies as their hosts, so to speak. And for someone who is a victim of sexual abuse to have an alter is extraordinarily uncommon. My godmother has somewhere around five or ten alters.
Re: the OP, I’ve been uncomfortable with “queer” for a while now. Same reason I am okay with being called weird but very much not okay with being called a freak. There’s an rather negative undertone to it that I really do not care for.
Plus “bisexual” is so much more to the point to me:)
I am queer and a dyke. I dislike using gay as it seems to really only mean the blokes (or else why have Gay and Lesbian), lesbian conjures up porn movie ideas in a segment of the population, woman who wears sensible shoes is far too long and makes me sound femme when I most definitely am not.
Face it:
we’re here
we’re homosexual
and we’re not going shopping!
I can see where you are coming from, but among other things it’s just so unromantic reducing sexuality to pure physicality.
I am not attracted to women, I have been attracted to a couple of female individuals but my primary attraction is to men.
This is one reason I like the word “queer”, it can avoid these petty distinctions without further dividing people.
One main reason I prefer not to identify as bi is the connotation of being a libertine that it carries, which doesn’t describe me at all.
And I’m sure that I’m going to be struck dead by a bolt of lightening from the heaven’s above for making it and hellfire will leap out of my screen to singe my eyebrows:
Think of “queer” as being used in a “non-denomiational” way. It conveys the message “queer” without specifying gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, bi-curious, etc. in a similar way that “Christian” describes one’s faith without specifying any particular denomination like Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. It also accommodates those for whom no exisiting term seems quite comfortable.
As grendel put forth it eliminates a lot of superficial classifications that end up being divisive.
Usually when people ask are you a lesbian or are you bi, I answer “Aquarius.” :wally
This thread reminds me somewhat of Jodi’s thread stating that as a Christian she’s offended by people using terms like Magical Sky Pixie. She wasn’t demanding others share her beliefs or definitions, just asking that others not use terms some found insulting. The issue was simple respect and manners, without debate or defense being needed. “If you know something offends others, don’t do it.”
It sure isn’t an exact analogy but some similarities exist.
FWIW I’m of the same generation taught as children that “queer” was a dire insult. We weren’t sure exactly what it meant, y’understand, but very little in the adult world made a lick of sense anyway. It was just one more unfathomable rule.
But that imprinting stuck. It was rude, hateful and A Bad Thing To Say.
I know, or least understand to the limited degree an outsider can, some of the socio/political changes and issues of self-definition since. But for me–YMMV and no great wisdom offered–it still just boils down to courtesy and respect: manners. For some, “queer” may be a sort of defiant anthem. “Slap an insulting label on me and I’ll laugh it right back in your teeth.” But the term still strikes some people as an insult. That alone is sufficient reason for me never to use it.
Look, few things are trickier–or more potentially combustible–than assuming someone else takes the same tack on sensitive issues. Muddling through insider defiance/pride/ self-definition is pretty fraught. Not espousing self-censorship, donchaknow, just…respectful awareness of others.
You know, gobear, I could swear that sexuality isn’t about what you do but what you want. Otherwise you don’t have sexuality prior to your first sexual experience. And that just doesn’t make any sense…
[sub]Do I cease to be bisexual if I’m only sexually active with women? I don’t think so…[/sub]
Oh Lord. Here we go - further along into the world of PC nonsense.
Um, but what if it’s really stupid? What if that person is just being overly sensitive? That is possible, isn’t it?
Many things offend many people. Some people IMO are just too damn sensitive.
It seems that the OP is giving a particular connotation to a word that the majority of the gay community has not. Get over it. I would hate to have to tiptoe in the land of PC bullshit any more than is already necessary.
Oh sure, it’s possible. But who exactly is judging who’s being stupid and over-sensitive? Any handy infallible benchmark ya got there?
**
And IMO–and experience–actually very few chronic gritchers exist, sulking around seeking offense. They exist, but PC extremism has granted them way more weight than they deserve. PC has trivialized the common human right to painless courtesy. Most folks–in my experience–HAVE developed scar tissue through life, in unique and quirky places. It just isn’t such a big, hairy accomodation to say, “Ooops, sorry, didn’t mean to tromp on that sore spot; won’t do it again.”
**
But that’s the problem. Name any group that’s taken votes and declared formal positions. Formal legislatures can’t pull that one off.
I’m not trying to punch your ticket, leander, really not. A lot of what you said rings chimes with me, especially the frustration of feeling like I’m tip-toeing through verbal landmines sometimes. But maybe I’m just approaching the issue from an individual vs. macro perspective. The way I read it, the OP was merely stating his unease with a certain usage, based on his individual background and experience. Surely it’s possible to inform of a personal, reasoned viewpoint. Surely that has value of it’s own. Maybe not universally agreed with but still legitimate. It just seems like such a small, humanly owed gesture to recognize it.
That’s just a quibble over terms. If it pleases you, you may restate my post as “If you desire both men and women, you are not gay, you are bi-c’mon, that’s the freakin’ definition!”
[Emily Latille voice on] What’s all this falderall about Gay Man with a Caveat"? I think a nicely tied tie looks just swell, but if they want a different look then it’s perfectly fine if they go with something else[Emily Latille Voice off]
I’ll go along w/ “polite”. I don’t cuss in front of certain people either, cause I know it’d bother them.
I think, perhaps, when the majority of said group agrees that it is not offense. Of course, being that it is impossible to take a formal vote, a general consensus is understood.
I think the evolution of the words nigger-Negro-black-African-American is a good example (though through an awful history). What is acceptable now is based on what is offensive to the majority of blacks. If a few find the word “black” an offensive term (and yes, there are some who do), should we stop using that word?
But I also understand that everyone is unique, scars and all. And common courtesy is always a good thing. What bothers me (and, frankly, frightens me) is the movement in this country towards a perfectly Politically Correct control of our words, thoughts and actions.
But perhaps there is a middle ground. If one finds something offensive, others don’t have to ram it down his/her throat. Self-censorship in the name of kindness is a good thing.
On the other hand, perhaps the person who is being offended could think about the ins and outs of their reaction. And discussing the issue with others could be helpful as well. Simply to say “this offends me (despite the fact that it offends very few others in said group) and so just stop it” is not particularly productive. For themselves or society.
A quibble over terms? “If you desire” vs. “if you sleep with” is hardly a quibble over terms.
Correct me if I’m wrong, gobear, but if you spent the next year having sex with Cindy Crawford you’d still be as gay as they come (your own words, several times:)). And as for restating your post, sure I could do that, but it’s just masking the disagreement instead of resolving it. I’d much rather you understand that it isn’t who you sleep with that determines sexuality. It’s what you want. I.E., both, neither, one more than another, etc. I was bisexual back when I was sleeping alone in my bed, and I’m still bisexual now that I’m engaged to fizzestothetop, who as far as I’ve been able to tell is a woman:) Sleeping with her didn’t change that (to hamster’s delight, I’m sure;)).
What’s the diff? Sleeping with someone is merely the result of desire–either way, the point is that if you lust after, fall in love with, or have romantic/sexual feelings for both genders, you are bisexual, not gay.
Romantic feelings and love can happen without lust. When my eye wanders it is to hot guys, but I have been in love with a female person- it was the person, not the parts that I was in love with.
