Do you believe in the hetero/bi/homosexual line?

Hehe.

(It's also not really about sexual identity, but sexual experience, although the preference-based definition extends "experience" to include "fantasies and arousal." I don't remember if that's from Kinsey or later.)

heterosexual
homosexual
and
'i'll fuck anything'

Not exactly, but you aren't far from the truth either. The reason I've been thinking about is because people have been telling me that "you must be at least bisexual" because I sometimes like to make out with men. However, I don't feel like "bisexual" as an identity fits me, because I've never dated a guy nor had proper sex with one. There are just some guys who in some situations who make me want them, but I don't feel this is sexual orientation thing, it's more like "seize the day". What I was trying to say is, that identities like homo/bi/heterosexual, or even the "gay line", which allows for more variation, are in a way binding, because they assume you have a certain position towards these things. I feel that in real life such "positions" can be ever-shifting, so there's isn't necessarily any reason to assume an steady homo/bi/heterosexual identity.

But, OK, what is the difference between what Tuomas described and "bisexuality". I mean as identities goes "bisexuality" would seem to be pretty nonspecific...

That describes me perfectly :-)

(coincidentally, I have slept with equal numbers of men and women)

we should have at least 5.

bollox to categories. Or Not bollox. Whatever.

It doesn't need to be two even parts; if I'd say I'm bisexual, I think people would think I sleep/have slept with men, which isn't true. I'm not saying it couldn't do it, I certainly have enough erotic feelings towards men to kiss and cuddle with them, but I'm against categories exactly because they usually imply more than what they litearlly mean.

there probably just need to be more words invented to describe different situations. only having three major categories (even if 'bi' is really broad) describing all patterns of sexual behavior seems a bit limiting. we should have at least 5.

No, I don't think that would be wise. As I said, there's no point in having categories if people may jump from one to category to other, whenever the situation is appropriate. I think you could just say, for example, that "I generally prefer girls, but in some cases I also have sexual feelings towards men, and might even imagine dating one, though I haven't done I yet".

Still, I don't think sexual identities should wholly abolished, at least not yet. Identities can also give you strength and make you feel you belong somewhere. For example, for people in the gay liberation movement it probably was quite important to identify themselves as "lesbian" or "gay", and thus make them feel part of a bigger family and movement. Gay liberation hasn't fully happened anywhere in the world (back here in Scandinavia we're perhaps closest to it, at least legally, with same-sex marriages and such), so politics and solidarity based on sexual indentity is still important. However, the tolerance for all sorts of sexual behaviour will hopefully continue to grow, and with it the need for firm identities and categories should gradually disappear.

I am increasingly FED UP of sexuality though and would prefer a nice cup of tea and a sit down, grump.

X-post wtf?!

Well, Huck does always talk a load of old cock.

Huck you should be careful what people write about you on toilet walls.

I get the feeling i misunderstood you perhaps.

No, I'm definitely as straight as they come. (Or I come?) I have never been sexually attracted to a girl. I remember in school they would stress so much it was the normal thing (to be lesbian/bisexual) that there were times I thought I was a freak for not liking girls. Yes, I was a bit mental when I was 15. ;-)

Let me add my name to the list of straight people. I don't know FOR SURE that I'm not a little bit bisexual, but all I can say is, that I've never fancied blokes. I think this makes me straight.

The way I see it everything's situational, but some types of behaviour are certainly more fixed than others; it's perfectly possible for a man to feel no attraction at all towards women for the whole of his life. The hetero-homosexual line could of course be seen as a representation of these sort of fixed behaviours, but my point was that such a representation can be limiting, since in real life sexual behaviour is more situational than the sort of definite categories often used imply.

All those photos of Tuomas kissing other dudes are flashing through my mind.

Since I've only ever posted one photo of me kissing a guy, I think what we have here is a false memory... Or wishful thinking? ;)

yerce, that's why all the big religions were so tolerant of non-heterosexual behaviour to the point of making straight marriage the foundation of society...

Wherein we're each given a certain index in each of like 30 categories, which include things like 'Situational Lability' and 'Social Affectation' and 'Stated Sadistic Tendency' and 'Actual Sadistic Tendency' and also one which draw major differences between things like heterosexuality, heterophilia, and heterosociability. And totally independent of those have an index for homosexuality, homophilia, and homosociability. And also 'Necessity of emotional involvement' and 'appreciation of novelty' and a bunch of others that I'm not smart enough (or motivated enough) to come up with.

The crumpled sheet manifold of hardcore fucking:

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/media/metrictensor.gif

"I was merely... ACTING!"

Henry, Tuomas's point in the question was that it was non-heterosexual behaviour that was not tolerated, rather than non-heterosexual identities.

And in fact non-heterosexual behaviour has often been tolerated in the past - I would wager usually because the specific behaviour and its context were such that it was not considered a threat to straight marriage's foundationalism (I'm guessing the notorious amount of homosexual behaviour in English boarding schools would be a good example here? I don't know much about it beyond what I've read in Alan Hollinghurst books, and i'm not sure if they're a reliable guide). This survives today in the cliche of the straight guy who will consent to receiving oral sex from another guy on the grounds that "any hole is a goal", and even more generally in the form of mutual masturbation among adolescents.

Even the establishment of a specific category of people in the form of the "homosexual" is pretty signficant step because it implies that same-sex desire cannot be regulated simply by regulating the practice of homosexual sexual behaviour. This is part of why many conservatives continue to consider homosexuality (and other forms of non-heterosexuality) to be a "lifestyle choice". The blatant wrongness of this has in recent times led to more "progressive" forms of Christian indoctrination camps - which run the line, "You'll always be homosexual, but if you always love God more than your bodily desires, you won't need to give into temptation and will be able to resist sin."

So I dunno.

I do have a very good friend who is ostensibly straight but is a lot like Tuomas: he will, on occasion, make out with another man if drunk. Often we'll discuss whether so-and-so is cute. He has never had a satisfactory relationship with another woman. He may be more gay than he's willing to admit; but that's his problem. I can only remind him of what he's missing.

I'm with Remy here -- there are far more interesting and revealing ways to index sexual identity.

(Pardon the explicit content, just trying to make a point)

All that aside. There are some groovy people in the world that don't plug into that kind of paranoia ... that is if it's not warranted

http://www.comicgenius.com/DiscoFever/images/disco_profiles/chic2.jpg

"We won't steal your girlfriend, we promise!"

marriage per se is not 'a sexual identity'. but it implied (it certain situations) certain constructions of male identity, female identity, and kind of inevitably, a hetero sexual identity. conversely, even foucault said that 'gay' behaviour (ie lack of sexual self-discipline) was frowned on in ancient greece, even if homosexual acts were accepted.

Exactly because homosexuality wasn't a fixed identity, many folks could probably enjoy occasional homosexual acts without thinking they were queer or anything.

i think they were allowed *so long as they didn't cross over into having a 'homosexual identity'* -- ie the concept of 'hypocrisy' was kind of accepted, in england anyway. but this doesn't mean there was no such thing as sexual identities: sodomy was a sin, but tolerable; being a 'sodomite' was something unpermissible.

i think your assumption is a big 'un w/r/t thousands of years of history.

Uh, dude, I'm just not interested in girls. Full stop. I don't need to stick my tongue in her mouth or whatever hole she offers, because I simply am not aroused by women. I just like dick. And most girls miss that. I find sex with women limiting cause I miss that necessary extension. :-)

In some other world, in some other society, we could conjecture that ORAL / NON-ORAL is the preoccupying, contentious, socially segregated behavior and that gender-preference is a minor concern. But you know what? In one way, I think that people who claim they're 'heterosexual' (as I am, too) as if that explains their entire sexual identity ARE self-limiting. I would never suggest somebody force themselves into something they don't want to explore, certainly.

But claiming one's identity is just plain 'heterosexual' is so broad as to be meaningless. It's like claiming one 'believes in God' as if that defines their religious identity.

All gays like teh buttsex, tho, right?

I do agree that the simpleminded attitude that two or three categories say it all is absurd, and the broader and richer approach is to be encouraged - that's part of what I was saying in distinguishing different ways you can be gay/straight/bi, even.

http://www.neverland-valley.com/neverland-valley/video-clips/videos/07_dangerous/black-or-white/pix/bow_008.jpg

Remy, whatever pretentiosexual beliefs you hold, how has it become your place to tell other people what their sexuality is? I'd hazard a guess that you enjoy talking about it - or agonising over your own as-yet-unrevealed issues - more than doing it, if this thread is any evidence.

(How many other people do you know that'll openly admit that popping preteen wood for Jonathan Brandis in Ladybugs has caused them not insignificant angst as a pretentiadult?)

That seems like a much healthier attitude than saying "I'm heterosexual" and thinking that means much.

Also, preteen Remy OTM re Ladybugs Brandis.

Cuz that also touches on the monogamy/poly thing, the concept of "mate for life", which Im alarmed to find I'm still not dealing with, I thought I'd settle down but my eye roves as much as it always did. I can love and be with someone TOTALLY but I still get very attracted to other people and want to push the limits.

Maybe I'm just warped.

< /snark>

I've already said as much on some other thread.