Something I've been thinking about.

[PassionFruit]

A friend of mine and I had an interesting conversation in regards to sexual orientation. She pointed out to me that there are times when she may like girls. I assumed she was heterosexual, and maybe she really is. There have been times when people have told me they are scolded for not choosing a "side". Like they should choose the label themselves as X and be done with it. But this is what I'd like to know: is there a time in which we should throw out labels such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.

I think many people here who post in this area of the forum may agree that sexual orientation is complex. What do you think?

 

[naotmaa]

At my college, a lot of girls here who fall under the category of lesbian/bisexual do not like to be labeled as such at all. Queer is a label many prefer here. It's a more all encompassing word. But I think more and more people are just choosing not to label themselves.

I think, a lot of the time, how people may identify is actually somewhat different than what they may actually be attracted to. So if we were to look at the Kinsey scale, very few people may actually rate as a 0 (exclusively heterosexual) or a 6 (exclusively homosexual). Many would fall somewhere in between.

I think labels are still going to around for a while though. People like them. It simplifies having to explain who they are attracted to and it's easier for people to understand.

 

[Merlin]

Throw out the labels.
Judge activity, not the person.

A person is not his/her activity.

 

[TeddyKGB]

There is little doubt that sexual orientation is a continuum (as opposed to a strict di- or trichotomy), although it is bound to look very little like a bell-curve. That makes sense when we consider that sexual attraction is a highly abstract quality.

Labels, I fear, are here to stay. For one thing, they seem to function as a natural heuristic; there is simply too much thinking involved in consistently considering each object or individual separately. For another, we must make conscious efforts to avoid labeling, yet our intellects are rarely in full control.

 

[Mumei]

Girls in general are much more flexible in their orientation...

 

[PassionFruit]

Girls in general are much more flexible in their orientation...

True, especially these days. But wasn't there a time in which that the opposite?

 

[selfinflikted]

True, especially these days. But wasn't there a time in which that the opposite?

Probably not. I submit that there was a time when it was prudent to be more discreet about one's flexability. Now that being something other than completely heterosexual is becoming less negative, you will undoubtedly see more non-heterosexual behavior.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Girls in general are much more flexible in their orientation...

According to YouTube, maybe.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Throw out the labels.
Judge activity, not the person.

A person is not his/her activity.

Sexual oriention is not an activity

 

[.Sabre.]

I'm probably about a 5 on the Kinsey scale. I identify with the "label", as it were, that is most correct. In other words, I identify as gay because I am not interested in men at all for the most part, but can appreciate their form.

 

[KalithAlur]

could females be more flexible because there's social motivation for women to be gay, and it's the opposite with men?

i mean, forgive me if you think i'm being closed-minded, but i think bisexual women exist in a world where bisexuality is socially encouraged, mostly by men, but also in general as something considered cool

and with males it's just the opposite. some females are abused for being lesbians/bisexual too but i think it's much more rare. where i live, nobody hates lesbians and everybody despises gay men

 

[Beanieboy]

Probably not. I submit that there was a time when it was prudent to be more discreet about one's flexability. Now that being something other than completely heterosexual is becoming less negative, you will undoubtedly see more non-heterosexual behavior.

You are aware that during the Roman/Greek empire, that men had sex with men for enjoyment, and with women for procreation? It was considered abnormal to be exclusively one or the other.

 

[naotmaa]

could females be more flexible because there's social motivation for women to be gay, and it's the opposite with men?

i mean, forgive me if you think i'm being closed-minded, but i think bisexual women exist in a world where bisexuality is socially encouraged, mostly by men, but also in general as something considered cool

and with males it's just the opposite. some females are abused for being lesbians/bisexual too but i think it's much more rare. where i live, nobody hates lesbians and everybody despises gay men

Although I agree that there are some women out there who bisexual mostly to get attention from men, there are many who are just simply attracted to both sexes.

But I do agree that with lesbian/bisexual women there is more tolerance than with gay/bisexual men. I think thats why you see so few men label themselves as bisexual. They would be more likely to suppress any same sex attraction in order to avoid any bigotry.

 

[Beanieboy]

could females be more flexible because there's social motivation for women to be gay, and it's the opposite with men?

i mean, forgive me if you think i'm being closed-minded, but i think bisexual women exist in a world where bisexuality is socially encouraged, mostly by men, but also in general as something considered cool

and with males it's just the opposite. some females are abused for being lesbians/bisexual too but i think it's much more rare. where i live, nobody hates lesbians and everybody despises gay men

There's also the MTV Real World "Hey, look at me! I'm kissing a girl! I'm a lesbian! Don't you guys think it's hot?" girls. And the men do.

My issue with the label is that often, girls I knew in college would claim to be bi while they were actually straight, mostly talking about guys they liked or loved, but a girl or two they kissed once when they were drunk. That hardly qualifies as bi, in my book.

When men claim to be bi, many people think that they are simply not man enough to admit to being gay, so they try to straddle both worlds. Quite often, the "bi" guy will tell you he is gay a year or two later.

The labels can be constricting, and often, people will just claim to be pansexual.

Gay works for me. I'm not 100% gay, but 95% at least, if not higher.

The other problem with labels is their purpose.
If I told someone that I was bi simply because I'm 99% gay, then, the person might think they have a potential to date me if they were female. It's annoying for me, especially from heterosexual women who have 90% of the men to choose from already.

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

This just reminds me of a quote from Brian Kenny from Queer as Folk. "It's ok to like *women*, and it's ok to like *men* too. Just... not at the same time." Of course, swears have been changed to make it more board friendly, but I just couldn't help thinking of it. Actually, it reminds me of the whole situation this quote talks about, but that's for another time.

Anyway, I would say it's reasonable to say that it's for someone to be attracted to someone of the opposite/same sex depending on their orientation. I don't really think it's reasonable to get rid of all labels, because normally(other than people claiming to be bi as beanieboy and other's have said) it's what people are attracted to most of the time, if not always.

 

[Beanieboy]

There is a great quote from Torchsong Trilogy, where he says, "I don't believe in bisexuality. I mean, how many gay men do you know sneaking out on their partners to sleep with women?

He has a great point.

I've met true bisexuals, but with men, many times, it's just a struggle of what they are feeling and what is expected of them, and the difficulty to have the two match up.

With women, on the other hand, it's a different story. A friend of mine told her boyfriend that she had had girlfriends before. Of course, he never had a problem with it.

If a man mentioned it to a woman, she would say, "ohhhh, you're gay!"

 

[variant]

A friend of mine and I had an interesting conversation in regards to sexual orientation. She pointed out to me that there are times when she may like girls. I assumed she was heterosexual, and maybe she really is. There have been times when people have told me they are scolded for not choosing a "side". Like they should choose the label themselves as X and be done with it. But this is what I'd like to know: is there a time in which we should throw out labels such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.

I think many people here who post in this area of the forum may agree that sexual orientation is complex. What do you think?

I think you are spot on.

I think that strict categories for sexual orientation are both limiting, and the product of people who have difficulty with ambiguity.

 

[Ramona]

Honestly, I'd prefer to throw the labels out, too. I don't think I have a "real" orientation. My physical attraction is probably about 75% to women and 25% to men, whereas my romantic attraction is probably 95% to men and only about 5% to women. It makes things difficult, but every so often I'll meet a man whom I have feelings for and think, "OK, I could tolerate being intimate with him."

If I had to label myself, I guess the label would have to be "heterosexual lesbian." Or, as the CF member Sparklecat has said, "poor straight-ish WF."

 

[SaintInChicago]

label
n 1: a brief description given for purposes of identification;
"the label Modern is applied to many different kinds of
architecture"

Labels are useful and it is an immature, adolescent fear that causes their reprobation, IMHO.

 

[selfinflikted]

You are aware that during the Roman/Greek empire, that men had sex with men for enjoyment, and with women for procreation? It was considered abnormal to be exclusively one or the other.

Of course, historically speaking. I wasn't going that far back in time with my point though. I was going only so far back as the Beaver Cleaver and Donna Reed era.