Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can one shoose to be asexual? that is, can one choose to not be attracted to other persons in a sexual manner? Or is this something innate?

Of course, proving an absence of feeling is a bit tricky.

Or is the question irrelevant because no-one is upset about that orientation?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Equally if someone is celibate it doesn't stop them from being gay or straight if that's who they fancy although they are not acting on it (or indeed being bi, or asexual)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Where to start. Screaming perhaps?

Let me point out that bisexual is no more a lifestyle choice than homosexual or heterosexual. Within each orientation lifestyle choices such as promiscuity, open relationships, serial monogamy or life-long partnership are available.

Which combinations ought to be taken seriously and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman
... My bishop self-identifies as gay but is a celibate monk, and so has not faced the same objections as Gene Robinson.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?

Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Since one of those four is founded in fidelity and commitment, and the other three are not, the answer is obvious.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?

Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?

---

No - it will take some healthy experimentation during puberty for him to discover whether he's straight or not.

---

It doesn't require any experimentation whatsoever, if you are thinking of experimenting in the usual sense of getting together with others. It just requires a lot of private bedroom fantasies and some furtive browsing of the internet (plus learning how to delete browsing histories).

All this emphasis on actual practical sexual experience is but one small step away from "but how do you know you're gay if you've never tried having sex with a woman?"

[ 02. January 2013, 10:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... different outlooks on life, different experiences and different opinions on 'normality' play a significant part of what we consider meaningful about other people.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
As to the other recent point, I don't see there's anything wrong in someone suggesting a new experience to someone else - there are such things as acquired tastes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I like guinness more than lager. If someone tells me that guinness is horrible, and harrangues me to switch to lager instead, I'm not going to pussy-foot around, pleading for tolerance by citing guinness-drinking as my 'orientation', I'm just going to tell them where to go.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can one shoose to be asexual? that is, can one choose to not be attracted to other persons in a sexual manner? Or is this something innate?

Of course, proving an absence of feeling is a bit tricky.

Or is the question irrelevant because no-one is upset about that orientation?

---

This reminds me of the quibble here about atheism being non-belief or belief in non-existance of a god. Is the asexuality a declination to participate or a happiness in being left alone?

People do care about asexuality. Typically it's seen as a "shyness" or a flaw that needs the help of others to "cure". Having asexuality as a known orientation can stop meddlers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?

Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?

---

I bring you back to the fact that there is an almost 2-decade gap between knowing that I was sexually attracted to men, and having a sexual encounter with a man (I've never had a sexual encounter with a woman).

I was gay during all that time. I might have been a tortured, closeted gay, but I was most definitely gay - otherwise I wouldn't have had anything to be tortured and closeted about.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?

Is a person really gay or straight, if they aren't actually being either?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Point on 'real meaning' of celibacy taken, although I maintain we should still take care not just to rush towards boxing ourselves into categories ~ I smoke one cigar a month, for example - does that make me a 'non-smoker', or a 'smoker' - neither, according to the assumptions which spring into people's minds when they use these terms.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes, quite ~ but the category 'smoker' is of precious little relevance to my day-to-day doings.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm trying to construct a definition of "non-smoker" which admits cigar smoking, and failing. I'm pretty sure that, similar to classifying someone as "gay" or "straight", no one assumes that a "smoker" will spend every waking minute smoking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.

---

Having your picture taken?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Choosing eye make up, if you do that sort of thing

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Within each orientation lifestyle choices such as promiscuity, open relationships, serial monogamy or life-long partnership are available.

Since one of those four is founded in fidelity and commitment, and the other three are not, the answer is obvious.

---

Which would imply that GLBT people could choose to be in a relationship involving fidelity and commitment, AND THAT WOULD BE ALRIGHT, except that too many people insist that SSMs are not to be allowed, because...well, no good reason, except that the OTHER people don't want gays to be faithful. Pretty poor reason, ISTM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman
... My bishop self-identifies as gay but is a celibate monk, and so has not faced the same objections as Gene Robinson.

---

How true really is that? Wouldn't it be more accurate for him to say (depending on life history) that he used to be gay or would be gay, but is now celibate and a monk?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Throwing-up ( ) would seem to be an over-reaction to suggesting...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
'Congratulations, you have just given birth to a straight baby boy' - Is that at all feasible or meaningful?

---

No - it will take some healthy experimentation during puberty for him to discover whether he's straight or not.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes, quite ~ but the category 'smoker' is of precious little relevance to my day-to-day doings.

---

What exactly does that mean? Most of the "categories" I fit into are of little relevance to my day to day doings. My blood type, shoe size, or eye color, for instance, are of little relevance unless I'm donating or receiving blood, buying shoes, or, um, doing whatever eye color is relevant to.

What's your point?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whereas in my job in IT it's always more Pizzas.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whereas in my job in IT it's always more Pizzas.

---

I have openly speculated at work about whether my ingestion of caffeine and almonds has an impact. But that's because I actually ingest them at work on a regular basis. Whereas sexual encounters in the office are distressingly infrequent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Point on 'real meaning' of celibacy taken, although I maintain we should still take care not just to rush towards boxing ourselves into categories ~ I smoke one cigar a month, for example - does that make me a 'non-smoker', or a 'smoker' - neither, according to the assumptions which spring into people's minds when they use these terms.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Sadly, as far as I'm aware no-one's done direct testing of whether straights and queers write laws in a different style.

I probably do it with more pizazz...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Our sexuality (and sexual orientation) affect the way we relate to men and women in all kinds of contexts.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Throwing-up ( ) would seem to be an over-reaction to suggesting...

---

To be clear, the throwing up is not at the idea of having sex with a woman. I don't find women disgusting.

The throwing up is because the question itself is an appalling one. Can you imagine what would happen if I went around asking straight men how they knew they were straight if they hadn't tried sex with another man? Even in this enlightened modern age, I'd be putting myself at risk of some kind of physically unpleasant response.

But we don't go around asking that question, because we understand that sexual interest and desire has got very little to do with what you've actually done and far more with what you'd LIKE to do. That's what the word 'desire' means. But when people ask "how do you know they're gay", they are trying to treat desire as some kind of synonym for 'experience'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Well - Maybe. And that's really all I'm trying to say. It's a maybe. It is at least possible that at least some people 'discover', 'realise', come to 'construct' an understanding of themselves - on a largely 'a posteriori', rather than a largely 'a priori' basis.

---

quote:

---

So there's nothing appalling about that question, in and of itself ~ though granted it may be inadvisable, in our current age.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Have you met any? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Yes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.

---

Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.

If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.

---

Scream if you all wish, but that is precisely the reason why I can't see how 'bisexual' can be a legitimate lifestyle, or one which the rest of us, whether straight or gay, should be expected to take seriously.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Now, whether or not you want to take me seriously is up to you (I am a very silly person, just ask my cat).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?

---

I'll be coming round to your place later in the year to kiss you and suck your penis. Keep an open mind.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
How can it be construed as insulting to keep an open mind on things which remain uncertain?

---

It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's insulting to tell SOMEONE ELSE to keep an open mind on things THEY'VE decided because it's not really telling them to keep an open mind; it's telling them they've made the wrong decision.

---

Mostly I'm just quoting this because I'm green with envy that I didn't say it myself--but I will add that it becomes even more insulting to people when your telling them to keep an open mind is suggesting they have misinterpreted their experience of themselves.

---