"unsure of your sexuality"

apparently i'm 26% gay i guess that's pretty uncertain!? half way to being bi.

1/"you would say that, because you are clearly unsure of your sexuality"

A PC way of saying "YUO=FAG"

2/"I am unsure of my sexuality"

"I am desperate, very het, and a bit girly looking. Please fuck me."

I think it's a bit ov a rubbish phrase really.

"Ssshh! They'll all want one."

This is complete speculation, as I'm not able to identify with the situation but: say you're bisexual, but you really covet, say, a "normal" life, marriage, kids, the ease of fitting into the family heterosexual norm. Surely in this case there is a huge amount of soul-searching to do to make sure this is what your psyche *really* wants - what if actually you're pretty much gay but are only feeling this way through a desire to fit in?

(NB I am not saying gay people do or should feel like this, it's entirely hypothetical, I'm just trying to find a way of justifying the phrase in the thread title)

according to THEM, anyway.

1: Are you ordering lasagne?

(If "Yes", go to question 2)
(If "No", go to question 4)

2: Do you have a dick in your mouth?

(If "Yes", go to question 3)
(If "No", go to question 4)

3: Are you a man?

(If "Yes", YOU ARE GAY)
(If "No", go to question 5)

4: Have you ever considered getting it on with a black man?
(If "Yes", go to question 3)
(If "No", YOUR LOSS; ONCE YOU GO BLACK, YOU NEVER GO BACK)

5: Are you busy tonight?

(If "Yes", YOU ARE GAY)
(If "No", I'M ABOUT TO WAX THAT ASS)

according to THEM, anyway.

Leave me out of it! Anyway, I think professing those ideas is more of a political act than an actual theory of sexuality. The idea that heterosexuals are a bit gay = an invitation for the majority to think about the minority; the idea that homosexuals are a bit straight = pressure to conform.

Anyway your sexuality shouldn't begin and end with whether you're heterosexual or not. There are all sorts of further details that you can be unsure about.

And if it is meaningless then why would someone say it or think they meant it? What do they really mean?

Do you believe in your sexuality as something fixed? Society in general probably do think of their sexuality this way I'd say, are they convincing themselves this? Is the old thing about men being more inclined to do this than women true in any way?

I mean the studenty American Pie type bollox about women being closer to their lesbian side yadda yadda yadda? Is there any truth in this?

http://www.ooze.com/ooze12/html/gay_quiz.html

"STYLE:
a) Wears short shorts and tight t-shirts.
b) Wears large nipple and navel rings.
c) Wears gold lame jumpsuit with neon sign reading, 'I LOVE JISM.'"

I'm not sure which exact statement you're talking about, but: The first version of the statement is that "homosexuals are really heterosexuals gone awry" which leads to "no, we homosexuals really aren't heterosexuals, trust us on this one" which leads to "actually though if you think about it as I know I have, you heterosexuals are probably a smidge homosexual" which leads to a lot of "nuh-uh"- and "uh-huh"-ing but eventually works its way into "oh yeah, well you homosexuals are probably a bit heterosexual as well" which sounds just a bit too much like square one.

This is where the statement that is meant to equalize people ends up coming off as oppressive.

But eventually it all leads to people saying "wow, these terms are of a certain amount of usefulness but they're not the end-all and be-all of sexuality; we are all unique butterflies or snowflakes and cherish your sexuality, cherish it!" which of course leads to "cherish my fist, bitchhole!"

Still, I'm not sure that a strong sense of self-worth would erase those power imbalances; it might make people more adamant in their adversarial political expression.

I don't see the importance of building the self-esteem of the majority; they're already in the position of comfort and power. I see the importance of building the self-esteem of the minority and removing that block from discourse; I agree that it won't help with the truly bigoted but it would (IMO) raise the credibility of the minority greatly to interact with neutral/friendly members of the majority with a mindset that doesn't immediately say, "This is how you are out to get me," the first time someone misspeaks.

I'm not sure that's a useful argument. Society consists of people, after all. To only way to find identity in society is to define yourself. You can't let a thing like your sexual preference flap in the breeze. And besides, that leaves you at the mercy of people who are adamant about their sexuality.

But I think one of the advantages of getting an idea like "sexuality" to be more specific and nuanced than "I like boys" "I like girls" "I like humans be they boys or girls!" is that you balkanize sexuality. It's almost like a form of unionbreaking -- heterosexuals don't necessarily have that much sexuality in common (an appreciation of the opposite sex sadly doesn't guarantee sexual compatibility) and so why allow them to be a voting bloc?

Or, I guess, there are better and more interesting politics to be had from the truth than from layers of lies.

No. Maybe I've read too much gender theory, but I'm inclined to think of sexuality as more performative than essential. ("Performative" not being restricted to just the physical act of sex, but also the whole range of past, present, and future desires.)

"Unsure of your sexuality" assumes that you have a definite sexuality, you just haven't figured it out yet. But isn't the unsureness itself an element of your sexuality? Isn't that what makes your sexuality different from the guy who's known that he's gay (or straight) since he was a kid and has never veered from that?

An example: For a while I considered myself bisexual. Then, late in college, I realized I wasn't as attracted to guys as I once was. So at first I thought, "Hmmm, well maybe I'm straight after all." But that seemed wrong, because I had fooled around with a couple of guys, and I couldn't rule out the possibility that some guy in the future might win me over, so to speak. I didn't want to ignore that, because my past experiences and (potential) future desires seemed integral to who I was. So it made me think that those categories (gay, straight, bi) aren't always useful.

Granted, most people don't really question their sexuality and thus can easily be categorized. But I guess I like thinking of sexuality as something more like personality than as a fact like eye color.

Society is greater than the sum of the people which constitute it.

There is no need to have a sexuality, to limit oneself or others in that way. At this stage many other people do feel that it is (for some unknown reason) important - hence society, currently, has sexuality. It need not be that way.

Being an "out" lesbian was a good for deflecting male advances. Now I have other techniques, that are not yet as successful but hopefully will be one day <delete man-hating rant>.

well i don't think its 'meaningless' either, although i used to have real trouble imagining what someone who said it must be experiencing. not knowing who/what/or whether you fancy this/that/or the other seemed almost inconceivable to me - wasn't this an area of biochemically-fuelled visceral limbic-system-psyche so far under everyone's bonnet that it was beneath/beyond ppls higher cortical functions?
no?
oh, must just be me then....

what is the definition of "sure" in this sense?
[bleh] 'lady if you have to ask...' [/bleh]
dunno: maybe 'sure' => never 'reflected' upon it enough to generate doubt/confusion because never triggered into doing so <=> depending on what yr model of ppl is: behaviourist rat/hormonal monkey/freudian blocked plumbing system/jesus's little sunbeam/existential bigshot then this is a matter of causality/luck/dignity....

(for a time i disliked intensely a hint of dignified transcendence attached to the 'unsure' (=> 'im not sure what food i like but therefore i am ABOVE mere BEAN-EATERS haha') - but as per the exchange above: there's a social history/discrimination against which this self-dignity is an understandable weapon)

Have you ever been unsure?
only time i have been attracted to own gender was when they looked like the opposite one - so i would reckon not
but no doubt there's a load of subconscious guff which would say otherwise
(don't agree that being able to rate one's own gender looks-wise is much to do with 'sexuality' either - more empathetic/observation)

What did you do?
got disappointed

As i have developed early alzheimer's become more reflective/confused about everything i think i can at least imagine now what this sensation might feel like...

That explains John B., then.

In other words: Melissa Etheridge / Billy Strayhorn / Jay-Z / Casey Spooner?

I understand, toraneko, but I still think it's a bit utopian. That's no way to get same-sex partner health benefits, or legalize gay marriage, or what have you. Like it or not, sex is political. No, it need not be that way, but it IS that way, and leading by example is only going to increase the likelihood that some self-appointed Bush administration Ayatollah is going to bust into your bedroom and haul your ass away. And in this way, standing up and being counted for who you like to have sex with is an important thing to do.

I think that's exactly what Toraneko is doing! If more people embraced the all instead of one or the other then maybe sexuality wouldn't be so politicized.

(heh, that reads like some Medieval prose)

(sorry)

I guess it was all those street fights I've gotten into,
but like half of those questions I didn't have any anwser to.

Bravo. I agree completely. (Don't forget the right to hold hands with a gf *and/or* a bf in public and not be harassed for it, too. That's even more taboo than the same-sex-only thing.)

(This is a bit OT, but I remember a Ohio paper (Youngstown area, I forget which one) that always used to use some variation of "Bisexuals Need Therapy" as the header whenever Ann Landers mentioned them in her column. Always, no matter what she printed about them. That irked me even then.)

I'd like to start a fight against the rights of people of all sexualities to hold hands in public (except maybe in parks). It bugs the hell out of me when there's a pair of quaint lovers blocking the pavement. Especially when they're doing that slow dreamy walk. "Look upon the squirrel, darling". I'm like, "Get out of the way, lemons" or else I'll barge right through them and break the bond.