Straight men want to have gay sex with me

[VinylTurnip]

@colonial

The phrase “making it (someone’s) business” implies avoidable
intrusiveness. The first thing anyone notices about anyone else
is, unavoidably, their sexuality.

Really? The first thing? Unavoidably?

Not their hair? Eyes? Skin color? Accent? Shirt, pants, dress, shoes? First thing to cross your mind is who they like fuck, which of course can always be determined instantly?

[April_R]

@VinylTurnip

Really? The first thing? Unavoidably?

Not their hair? Eyes? Skin color? Accent? Shirt, pants, dress, shoes? First thing to cross your mind is who they like fuck, which of course can always be determined instantly?

Yeah, he really shoved his foot way back in his mouth when he said that. His whole black/white sexuality thing is pretty funny, but also sad at the same time. He either really thinks it’s that simple or he is hiding something himself. hummmmm?

[colonial]

@boytyperanma

colonial what seems to be your issue is you have no respect for the opinions of others and feel you possess the ability to label people based on what you view is common sense. What is common sense to you isn’t common sense to others including those with professional incite [sic; viz “insight”] into the topic.

I’d asked you to take this topic to another thread, you’ve done nothing in this thread beyond hijack the original topic. Do you care to weigh in on anything other than your views on sexuality?

The issue is that I have no respect for opinions, such as yours,
whose point of departure rests upon slovenly misdefinition. In your
case the slovenly misdefinition consists of conflating such mutually
exclusive terms “bisexual” and “straight”.

As for labels, where I use them it is always appropriate. Furthermore,
you used them in OP so you are not entitled to object to their use by others.

I will reply to others as long as they reply to me unless the dialogue
become repetitious. If you don’t like it then stop replying.

[colonial]

@VinylTurnip

Really? The first thing? Unavoidably?

Yes.

@VinylTurnip

Not their hair? Eyes? Skin color? Accent? Shirt, pants, dress, shoes?

No.

@VinylTurnip

First thing to cross your mind is who they like fuck, which of course can always be determined instantly?

Huh?

[colonial]

@April_R

Yeah, he really shoved his foot way back in his mouth when he said that.

Nope.

@April_R

His whole black/white sexuality thing is pretty funny, but also sad at the same time.

There is nothing funny or sad about accurate definition. Someone who
is attracted to both sexes is bisexual. Gotta problem with that?

A bisexual who tells his wife he likes only women is being deceitful, or,
to put it more bluntly, he is a liar. Gotta problem with that? I kind of
thought that was the whole point of some of your posts. The whole
black and white point.

@April_R

He either really thinks it’s that simple or he is hiding something himself. hummmmm?

Nope.

[Number]

I know I’m a little late with this, but

@boytyperanma

I work in the trades

I see what you did there.

[Troppus]

colonial, ever heard of the Kinsey scale? Just something you might want to consider before you go off on your next rant.

[April_R]

@Troppus

colonial, ever heard of the Kinsey scale? Just something you might want to consider before you go off on your next rant.

I think he is getting way off base and confusing something like the Kinsey scale, which demonstrates the spectrum of human sexuality, with the very narrow labels of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. While those terms can be a good jumping off point for trying to understand human sexuality, they aren’t entirely accurate. For example, I could have had an encounter in college with a female friend where we had sexual relations yet still call myself heterosexual. I self identify as heterosexual because I mostly am attracted to men, but may occasionally find myself attracted to a female. However, my sexuality is defined by my own label and my culture. I could choose to call myself bisexual but I do not.

Now where he is getting confused is he is conflating a sexual act or a sexual behavior with a sexual orientation. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive nor are they mutually inclusive.

In fact it is entirely plausible that a man who leads a heterosexual life with a female partner yet engages in homosexual sex outside of the marriage would still consider himself heterosexual. It happens ALL the time. Maybe **colonial **can’t accept it, but it is fact. They may engage in homosexual behavior but they do not self identify as homosexual or bisexual and therefore are not homosexual. Simple as that.

And I stand by my original thought, that someone so dead set on labeling others and admitting they think first about someone’s sexuality when they meet them (which is way creepy by the way) and seems fixated on calling someone a homosexual is hiding something themselves.

I wonder how he would handle someone who calls themselves pansexual or asexual? I assume he would think they were delusional and obviously couldn’t be what they say they are because in his world those definitions of sexuality can’t possibly exist.

This is a great quote from the site you referenced:

“It is a characteristic of the human mind that tries to dichotomize in its classification of phenomena….Sexual behavior is either normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, heterosexual or homosexual; and many persons do not want to believe that there are gradations in these matters from one to the other extreme.

[gracer]

@April_R

For example, I could have had an encounter in college with a female friend where we had sexual relations yet still call myself heterosexual. I self identify as heterosexual because I mostly am attracted to men, but may occasionally find myself attracted to a female. However, my sexuality is defined by my own label and my culture. I could choose to call myself bisexual but I do not.

And remember: women having one or two sexual encounters with other women is usually a-ok, they experiment but really they still want a man because obviously a hot woman could never do without a man. Men who experiment once or twice with another man are icky gays and a threat to all heterosexuals everywhere, ever. They are planning to take over the world and turn all our innocent children gay. :dubious:

It’s a bizar double standard on our bizar black-and-white world.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@colonial

One’s sexual identity is probably not a personal choice, but is genetically determined, right?

I don’t think these are the only 2 options.

[VinylTurnip]

@colonial

@Vinyl Turnip

First thing to cross your mind is who they like fuck, which of course can always be determined instantly?

Huh?

Not sure why this requires further explanation, but here goes:

You claim the first thing you notice about someone is their sexuality, i.e. whether they are sexually attracted to men, women, both, or neither. You observe this immediately, before you notice anything about their appearance, which means it must happen instantaneously upon meeting someone. This strikes me as a remarkable, almost supernatural claim.

How do you do that, exactly, and have you considered applying for the JREF Challenge? You could make an easy $1 million.

[colonial]

@Troppus

colonial, ever heard of the Kinsey scale? Just something you might want to consider before you go off on your next rant.

Kinsey and I are focusing on different aspects of sexuality. He is labeling all
people according to relative frequency of different types of sexual encounter.
I am labeling them according to whether they are sexually attracted (oriented)
to the same sex, to the opposite sex, or to both.

For Kinsey or anyone else assign exclusive significance to frequency and none
to orientation is ridiculous. Kinsey was a zoologist? Well, I doubt he would have
claimed it was insignificant that bears were omnivorous, and that the relative
weight of meat and plants in their diet was the only dietary characteristic worth
mentioning. Furthermore, the Kinsey scale approach employs arbitrary labels while
I do not. What do “only incidentally” and “more than incidentally” mean, anyway?
Nothing scientific, that’s for sure, science being, if anything, concerned with numerical precision.

@April R

I think he is getting way off base and confusing something like the Kinsey scale, which demonstrates the spectrum of human sexuality, with the very narrow labels of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.

I am not confusing them. I am assigning more value to the method containing no
arbitrary elements than to the method with several arbitrary elements.

@April R

While those terms can be a good jumping off point for trying to understand human sexuality, they aren’t entirely accurate. For example, I could have had an encounter in college with a female friend where we had sexual relations yet still call myself heterosexual. I self identify as heterosexual because I mostly am attracted to men, but may occasionally find myself attracted to a female. However, my sexuality is defined by my own label and my culture. I could choose to call myself bisexual but I do not.

You can choose any label you want for yourself. You like an occasional Big Mack?
A weekly Big Mack? A daily Big Mack? Go ahead and call yourself a vegetarian!
However, you see the label is meaningless when slovenly defined. Similarly, your
choice of the term “heterosexual” is slovenly and misleading because it conveys
an inaccurate impression of your true sexual orientation.

@April R

Now where he is getting confused is he is conflating a sexual act or a sexual behavior with a sexual orientation. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive nor are they mutually inclusive.

Ha ha-- so acts and behavior are not to be confused with orientation?

Thanks for that tip!

What I identified as mutually exclusive were the terms “bisexual” and “straight”.
You like the Kinsey scale? Well, it clearly differentiates the labels “exclusively heterosexual”
and “exclusively homosexual” from all other labels.

@April R

In fact it is entirely plausible that a man who leads a heterosexual life with a female partner yet engages in homosexual sex outside of the marriage would still consider himself heterosexual. It happens ALL the time. Maybe colonial can’t accept it, but it is fact. They may engage in homosexual behavior but they do not self identify as homosexual or bisexual and therefore are not homosexual. Simple as that.

They can consider themselves whatever they want, but if they enjoy encounters
with both sexes then they are bisexual. I wonder which label the deceived wives
might be inclined to choose.

@April R and Vinyl Turnip

April R: And I stand by my original thought, that someone so dead set on labeling others and admitting they think first about someone’s sexuality when they meet them (which is way creepy by the way) and seems fixated on calling someone a homosexual is hiding something themselves…

Vinyl Turnip: Not sure why this requires further explanation, but here goes:

You claim the first thing you notice about someone is their sexuality, i.e. whether they are sexually attracted to men, women, both, or neither…

I was not referring to the person’s sexual orientation, but to whether the person
is male or female.

@April R

This is a great quote from the site you referenced:
Quote:
“It is a characteristic of the human mind that tries to dichotomize in its classification of phenomena….Sexual behavior is either normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, heterosexual or homosexual; and many persons do not want to believe that there are gradations in these matters from one to the other extreme.

I have not expressed any opinion as to normality and abnormality. For the record
I am undecided. I think all three orientations should be socially acceptable, although
I am undecided about much legal force should be applied to support acceptance.
Obviously there are individual differences in the frequency of the three possible types of encounter.

[colonial]

@Labrador_Deceiver

I don’t think these are the only 2 options.

Well, maybe cultural approval or disapproval influences the relative occurence rates
of the different orientations. The problem is I do not think there could be any way
to test the hypothesis. On the other hand, if there are genes which influence sexual
orientation it should be possible to identify them.

[April_R]

Ahahahahah, I get it. You are trying to apply a quantitative scientific approach when describing and defining human sexuality. This is an exercise in futility my friend. There are the social sciences for a reason. You can’t quantify human sexuality any more than you can quantify love. Maybe you should read Jean J. Schensul, Ph.D. on qualitative research. Might help better inform your thought process. This is a good reading list to get you started

http://www.medanth.org/books/qualitative.htm

or you can keep sticking your narrow-minded “scientific” head in the sand, which isn’t very scientific at all because you aren’t considering all the possibilities and just using shallow methods and flawed logic to justify your bias.

[April_R]

@colonial

I was not referring to the person’s sexual orientation, but to whether the person
is male or female.

.

Then you should have said gender. And gender is ALSO culturally defined and varies. You cannot make an accurate gender judgement upon first meeting someone anymore than you can about their sexual orientation. And unless you can see their genitalia you can’t know their sex either (and even genitalia isn’t a reliable indicator of genetic sex in many cases). You just can’t admit what you said was silly and presumptive, which isn’t scientific its just stupid.

Here: Male or female? You tell me since you think you can tell from just a glance

http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/04/14/5/286/2862078/bd94901bd931d04f_a_250x375.jpg

http://www.enews.org/blog/_pics/052904_YnnejLongHair.jpg

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3224973/long_haired_teenage_boy_smiling_showing_braces_on_014433BL.jpg

http://www.thailande-infos.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/3.jpg

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/7/7/1/1/9/7/mee-26340781917.jpeg

[colonial]

@April R

(post #95)
Ahahahahah, I get it. You are trying to apply a quantitative scientific approach when describing and defining human sexuality. This is an exercise in futility my friend. There are the social sciences for a reason. You can’t quantify human sexuality any more than you can quantify love. Maybe you should read Jean J. Schensul, Ph.D. on qualitative research. Might help better inform your thought process. This is a good reading list to get you started

http://www.medanth.org/books/qualitative.htm

or you can keep sticking your narrow-minded “scientific” head in the sand, which isn’t very scientific at all because you aren’t considering all the possibilities and just using shallow methods and flawed logic to justify your bias.

A completely idiotic post.

I have made it clear that I am employing a common sense approach.
You know, the one which omits daily Big Mack customers from the list
of vegetarians. No science at all is necessary to reach that conclusion!

Similarly, science is not necessary to inform us that people who are capable
of enjoying intercourse with members of both sexes are most accurately
defined as bisexual, and the frequency of same-sex encounters is irrelevant.

It is ridiculous of you to post a link to some tome and expect an opponent
to go out and buy it. If you have actually read and understood the goddam
thing yourself, then provide quotation from it, or best, provide an internet
link to an internet treatment of the subject.

As for methods and logic you would not appreciate what it is to be rigorous
after grounding your approach in the soft sciences. Soft science is not really
science at all, reveling as it does in mushy definitions, lacking as it does all
predictive power, and speciously contradicting common sense at every turn
not on the basis of evidence, but out of a desire to stir up mere publicity
useful for grant applications but nothing else.

@April R

(post #95)
Then you should have said gender. And gender is ALSO culturally defined and varies. You cannot make an accurate gender judgment upon first meeting someone anymore than you can about their sexual orientation. And unless you can see their genitalia you can’t know their sex either (and even genitalia isn’t a reliable indicator of genetic sex in many cases). You just can’t admit what you said was silly and presumptive, which isn’t scientific its just stupid.

Here: Male or female? You tell me since you think you can tell from just a glance

Another completely idiotic post.

If I might appeal to science here, I believe the field of anatomy provides
objective definition of gender, although anyone so far over the deep end
as to propose there might be a cultural aspect to the term is not going to
be able to grasp anything of real scientific value.

As for the need to observe genitalia to determine one’s gender, that is
unnecessary 24/7/365 in all but an minuscule number of cases for anyone
who does not hang out in places which cater to cross dressers and transsexuals.
And in any case I took the trouble to mention to begin with: ”if first appearance
proves inaccurate then the correction takes first place on the list.”

[twickster]

colonial, you’re being combative and offensive, esp. for MPSIMS. If you wish to discuss your philosophy further, start a thread in Great Debates. In this thread, you’re hijacking the discussion and should desist.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[April_R]

@colonial

If I might appeal to science here, I believe the field of anatomy provides
objective definition of gender, although anyone so far over the deep end
as to propose there might be a cultural aspect to the term is not going to
be able to grasp anything of real scientific value.

As for the need to observe genitalia to determine one’s gender, that is
unnecessary 24/7/365 in all but an minuscule number of cases for anyone
who does not hang out in places which cater to cross dressers and transsexuals.
And in any case I took the trouble to mention to begin with: ”if first appearance
proves inaccurate then the correction takes first place on the list.”

Anatomy is sex (male/female) while gender *is *culturally defined. In some cultures there are 3 or more genders accepted by society. Anatomy has never tried to define gender, only sex. And even in anatomy there are sexes outside of the male/female dichotomy. I may not be a hard scientist, but I am also not stupid.

@http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/sexual-orientation-gender/female-male-intersex-26531.htm

Biological sex is our anatomy as female, male, or intersex.
It includes our internal and external sex organs, chromosomes, and hormones.
Some people are intersex rather than female or male.

**It’s common for people to confuse biological sex and gender. **Our sex only refers to our sexual anatomy and chromosomes. Our gender is our biological, social, and legal status as girls and boys, women and men. Each culture has standards about the way that people should behave based on their gender. For example, many cultures expect and encourage men to be more aggressive than women.

Our gender identity is our innermost feelings about our sex and gender. Some people have a gender identity that strongly conflicts with their biological sex — they are called transgender.

I’ll keep my soft science and you keep your head in the sand.

[_Olive]

The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies by James Neill is an interesting read.

[twickster]

Since I’ve asked colonial to take the debate elsewhere, I’d appreciate it if the rest of you would let his arguments in this thread drop as well – he can’t respond without ignoring moderator instructions.

Again, any of you are welcome to start a thread in Great Debates.

Thanks,

twickster, MPSIMS moderator