homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The future of sexuality (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The future of sexuality
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Don't go getting all pedantic.

I'm not. My point is that there are many levels of submission that have naught to do with "feminine" qualities. Indeed, modern society, especially capitalistic ones, cannot exist without submission in some form. No subversion of "masculinity" needed.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys.

And yet, not that many of the homosexual men I know fit the stereotypes of 'effeminate' homosexuals.

Oh sure, SOME do. I suppose stereotypes develop for a reason. Although some of the men in question are probably actually transgender, not homosexual.

But it's perfectly possible to be a thoroughly masculine, even hyper-masculine, male and be homosexual. Gareth Thomas has already been mentioned. I actually know a few big, strong gay rugby players, and there's enough of them that the Bingham Cup has just been on. Look it up.

There are big, tall, strong, leather-wearing cigar-smoking blokes who would fit all of your stereotypes of an alpha male, except that they enjoy sex with men rather than women.

Very occasionally, I encounter someone who suggests that somehow me being gay means I might want to be a women. I just roll my eyes at that. It's completely untrue. And conflating homosexuality and transgender-ness is just wrong. It is perfectly possible for transgender people to wish to transition from looking homosexual to looking heterosexual OR from looking heterosexual to looking homosexual.

I'm sure you'd manage to point to something about me and say "see, that's what a girl would (stereotypically) do", but I've no doubt as to my maleness. I've got plenty of traits you would consider stereotypically male as well. The main one I apparently lack is a desire to reduce women to sexual objects that exist for my gratification and to perform household chores for me.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am very much heterosexual when it comes to sex. Gender-wise I'm not sure. I think I'm a homosexual man in a woman's body.

Ever since I was very young I have wished I was born a man. I am a girlie girl (love handbags and nail varnish) who thinks and acts in every other way like a man. I love to go down the pub and have a laugh with the blokes.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?

Fatherhood, headship, breadwinner status etc. All those kind of things.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?

Fatherhood, headship, breadwinner status etc. All those kind of things.
Well, that's okay then. I'm the head of my household.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.

I neither stated any such opinion, nor did I attribute it to the article we are discussing, nor do I in fact hold it. I would however question what "being entirely gay" even means, just as I would question what "being entirely straight" means. I have never felt the slightest sexual attraction to men. But I find that the connection between genital stimulation and orgasm is pretty "mechanical" for me, and consequently I expect that another men could stimulate me to orgasm. I might have to look away and not think about what is happening, but it would likely work. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? I also have the professional opinion, based on psychology and neuroscience, that with properly targeted frequent and pleasurable genital stimulation by another man I likely could learn to look forward to gay sex. Or to put it differently, I may be rational, but I also am an animal, and operant conditioning usually works quite well on animals. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? Perhaps it does mean that. Perhaps there are "pure straights" who neither could blend out the source of their genital stimulation nor would respond in any way to sexual operant conditioning. I do not know, and I know no ethical way of arriving at that knowledge. But it doesn't really matter to me, personally. Neither how I identify myself (straight) nor what I consider to be morally licit (straight sex between married people) relies fundamentally on how biologically flexible I or other people are in their sexuality.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Conservatives have jumped on Queer Theory with glee, and used it to back their gay cure agenda. They'd love nothing better than to eliminate "gay identity," not in the cause of liberation, but as a first step to eliminating homosexuality itself.

Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.

I neither stated any such opinion, nor did I attribute it to the article we are discussing, nor do I in fact hold it. I would however question what "being entirely gay" even means, just as I would question what "being entirely straight" means. I have never felt the slightest sexual attraction to men. But I find that the connection between genital stimulation and orgasm is pretty "mechanical" for me, and consequently I expect that another men could stimulate me to orgasm. I might have to look away and not think about what is happening, but it would likely work. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"?
I would say no, for exactly the same reason that I would say the complete absence of any sexual activity with another male before the age of 33 does not mean I only 'became gay' at the age of 33. Surveys have shown that conservative Christians frequently associate homosexuality with actual homosexual activity. The same surveys have shown that LGBT people do not.

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

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Boogie: I am very much heterosexual when it comes to sex. Gender-wise I'm not sure. I think I'm a homosexual man in a woman's body.

Ever since I was very young I have wished I was born a man. I am a girlie girl (love handbags and nail varnish) who thinks and acts in every other way like a man. I love to go down the pub and have a laugh with the blokes.

[Smile]

Years ago, when I hadn't been living in Brazil for so long, I stayed in the house of friends for a couple of weeks while I was looking for a place to live.

They had two children aged 4 and six, and one evening I said to my friends: "You go to cinema, enjoy yourselves, I'll take care of the children." So, I cooked for them, played games with them and put them to bed.

The next day, I spoke about this with another friend. She said to me: "This is so great about you Europeans, that you can show your feminine side like this!" Stereotyping aside, I believe she was wrong.

I love cooking and taking care of children, but I don't feel female when I do these things. I feel very much a man when I do this. Just as much as when I go to a game of football with the blokes.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very nice example, Le Roc. It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained. Everybody is complex, and made up of different strands, although of course, the traditional roles expected of men and women are simplifications, and could be described as false selves.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
3M Matt & IngoB,

I was thinking about this topic today and thinking that perhaps my own experiences are quite a relevant example.

In my teenage years the people I found sexually attractive were all male (I'm male). So I knew that the statement "I am sexually attracted to some guys" was true. But I didn't know whether the statement "I am sexually attracted to some girls" was true or not. I had never met a girl I was sexually attracted to, but neither had I met all the girls in the world. So I had no proof that there wasn't some girl 'out there' somewhere for me that I could fall in love with get happily married to, etc. So I thought of myself as "bisexual, maybe gay". Being well aware that my family and society would make my life all kinds of difficult if I choose a guy rather than a girl, I sincerely hoped that a girl would eventually happen along that I liked and that I would turn out to be bisexual rather than gay and that thus I could find a girl and marry her. Eventually, after about 15 years of thinking "well maybe I'll find a girl I like eventually", I forced myself to do the math and tally up the total number of guys I had found sexually attractive over the years (plenty) and the total number of girls (zero). So eventually I had to say to myself "hey, you better stop kidding yourself, you're not 'bisexual', you're gay." The social pressure, especially coming from a Christian background, to not be gay is extremely strong. No one chooses to be gay if they've got the option to choose not to be!

So the question of 'labels', of whether I am 'bisexual' or 'gay' has been something that has deeply affected my life for years. And this was due to social prejudice - it was because the label of bisexual held out hope of a socially acceptable life that the label of gay didn't hold. It is my sincere hope that in the future that people like me will not have to suffer through what I did. If the prejudice can be removed then the future me would have simply fallen in love with a guy and gotten married to him and lived happily ever after without spending years grappling with the question of whether there might be a girl out there somewhere for me. That future me wouldn't care if he was 'bisexual' or 'gay', he'd just be happy to have found someone to love.

But just because the labels had gone away, that future me wouldn't be any less gay (I'm defining 'gay' here as 'being sexually attracted solely to members of the same sex'). Whether or not society put labels on it, my innate psychology/biology would have still not found any girls attractive. The difference is that I wouldn't have cared about the fact that I found no girls attractive and may possibly not even have noticed that I found no girls attractive. Taking away the social prejudice and its consequent labels would have saved me years of pain and soul-searching and made my life much much better, but it wouldn't have made me any less gay. I believe that the same would apply to the vast majority of people who currently regard themselves as "gay".

When we look back in history at civilizations such as Rome, who were accepting of gay relationships, and consequently had no labels for 'straight', 'gay' and 'bisexual', what we actually find is that same-sex acts were a whole lot more common than they are now. There are surviving hints from that time of a small minority of men who were solely attracted to men (ie gay), but that was seemingly considered unusual at that time, and the majority of men were what we would label 'bisexual' insofar as they were quite happy to have sex with either males or females, and the remainder (a significant minority) were straight. What this suggests to me is that naturally a huge proportion of humans are somewhere on the bisexual continuum, and that if our culture wasn't so anti-gay then a lot of the people who currently claim they are "straight" would actually be behaving as bisexuals. While a minority would still be biologically/psychologically attracted to only guys or only girls (and thus be truly 'gay' or 'straight'), the majority would be bisexual.

It is also quite possible that cultural influences play a very strong role and that thus in our current culture that strongly endorses straight relationships has managed to truly make straight at psychological level a lot of people who would have been bisexual had they been raised in a different culture. This could explain an apparent difference in numbers between seeming (high) levels of bisexuality in ancient Rome and (low) percentage of people in the present admitting to bisexuality in anonymous surveys. So, yes, I'm saying that the conservative Christians may be right about it being potentially possible to culturally indoctrinate a lot of people into being straight who otherwise wouldn't be straight. (But remember gay people in the present are people on whom that existing programme of cultural pressure and prejudice and indoctrination has already failed to work, so trying to apply it to them again and expecting a different result as ex-gay therapy tries to do is a fools errand) So it's possible that when you take away the cultural teachings of straightness as the norm and prejudices against same-sex acts, that subsequently a lot more straight people will become bisexual at a psychological level, and then will act on it.

Some things I take away from this:
1) Anyone who thinks that people in the present are gay from 'choice' I regard as completely delusional and totally out of touch with reality. The idea that anyone growing up in our strongly anti-gay culture would make a 'choice' to be gay when they could chose otherwise is just hilariously stupid.
2) The percentage of bisexual people is probably quite large and much bigger than most people give it credit for.
3) As society becomes more accepting of gay people, the bisexual people will be freer to be themselves, and there will probably become more of them as the social conditioning that is currently turning them straight ceases to operate. And people who are actually gay, like myself, won't have years of our life ruined by wondering if really we might be a little bit bisexual and instead we can just marry a guy and get on with our lives.
5) I think Peter Tatchall is thinking about this issue of the emergent bisexual population, and that explains most of his article. He envisages a future where people currently trapped in a label of 'straight' are free to actually express their desires, where the people currently labelled 'gay' don't have to do decades of soul-searching to confirm they aren't really just 'bisexual', and where the people currently labelled 'bisexual' aren't stigmatized and aren't constantly asked "are you sure you're not just 'gay'?" A future where people can just honestly be themselves, and love whomever they love, without self-doubt, fear, questioning, and prejudice... That's a future I can support, and which I imagine most other LGBT people can too, which I think is why there's no outcry about Tatchall's article like you apparently think there should be.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also have the professional opinion, based on psychology and neuroscience, that with properly targeted frequent and pleasurable genital stimulation by another man I likely could learn to look forward to gay sex. Or to put it differently, I may be rational, but I also am an animal, and operant conditioning usually works quite well on animals. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? Perhaps it does mean that. Perhaps there are "pure straights" who neither could blend out the source of their genital stimulation nor would respond in any way to sexual operant conditioning. I do not know, and I know no ethical way of arriving at that knowledge.

You're hardly the first to think of that. Plenty of ex-gay conversion therapies have implemented methodologies based on this reasoning. It turns out not to work. Nor is it ethical IMO.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained.
Coarse-grained yes, but the label 'male' still has meaning to me. Like I said, I feel male. So I guess it means something. I tried to show in my example that it isn't linked to 'male' or 'female' activities. And LQBGTXNI ... people show us that it isn't directly linked to having a penis either. Yet, the feeling of maleness is very real.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained.
Coarse-grained yes, but the label 'male' still has meaning to me. Like I said, I feel male. So I guess it means something. I tried to show in my example that it isn't linked to 'male' or 'female' activities. And LQBGTXNI ... people show us that it isn't directly linked to having a penis either. Yet, the feeling of maleness is very real.
I think that's fine, and I should not have used the term 'false self'. It isn't that.

If it has meaning for you, then it does. I suppose I'm objecting to a kind of imposed identity; so men 'should' do X and Y, and not A and B.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
quetzalcoatl: I suppose I'm objecting to a kind of imposed identity; so men 'should' do X and Y, and not A and B.
I definitely agree with your objection to this.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, growing up in working class Manchester, the injunctions on men were fierce. Do this, don't do that, wear this but not that, say this, but not that, don't cry, don't be girly, keep your pecker up, etc.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you.

"Appear" is the right word, 'cause it's a straw man. I referred to identity, not biology.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
You're hardly the first to think of that. Plenty of ex-gay conversion therapies have implemented methodologies based on this reasoning. It turns out not to work. Nor is it ethical IMO.

Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients". I very much doubt that conservative Christians would consider that to be a good plan, and certainly you won't get it past some medical ethics committee. The only real data on such attempts out there is likely from some desperate dad financing a whore for his son in an attempt to turn him. But unless that dad happens to be a psychologist, I doubt that it will be anything but a once off, stressful and sordid affair unlikely to effect anything. Operant conditioning isn't magic, you need to keep at it for a long time and use the right setting. Trying to do this properly would require rather deep pockets and considerable organisation, as well as a comprehensive lack of Christian sexual morals, of course...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you
Truth. Perhaps the most misused word in the a Western world.
You appear to be claiming a physiological flexibility where many would see it as a psychological phenomenon.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Truth" is certainly overplaying the thing at issue. What little data we have on (genuine) orientation shift appears to suggest that it's spontaneous and rare.

In any case, it has no bearing on the snake oil peddled by the gay cure movement, who want to destroy identity as a first step to reprogramming LGBT people. As testified by occupiers throughout history, if you want to break a people, you first attack their culture and sense of identity.

That's the warning folk like Tatchell need to heed. This isn't an academic exercise. It can be harnessed by their enemies and used against them.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
That's the warning folk like Tatchell need to heed. This isn't an academic exercise. It can be harnessed by their enemies and used against them.

What enemies? The British situation is that most of the remaining public fall into three camps. The first are the Blue Rinse Brigade, generally post retirement, and who are turning to Nigel Farrage because not even the Tory Party is going to speak for them. The second consists of people in pulpits and a tiny minority of their audience. The homophobes are even losing the football terraces. And if they start back up again, it'll be almost everyone under 40 against the homophobes.

Tatchall almost certainly has a better grasp of the overall situation in Britain than you or I. And what he's talking about is two things. First undoing an injustice that sprang up in defence. (That injustice being bi-erasure). Second the final nail in the coffin of the opposition. People not caring. Homophobia being seen as incomprehensible.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What enemies? The British situation is that most of the remaining public fall into three camps. The first are the Blue Rinse Brigade, generally post retirement, and who are turning to Nigel Farrage because not even the Tory Party is going to speak for them. The second consists of people in pulpits and a tiny minority of their audience. The homophobes are even losing the football terraces. And if they start back up again, it'll be almost everyone under 40 against the homophobes.

Far from everyone under 40, sadly: Stonewall found that homophobic bullying is endemic in British schools.

As for the rest, the Church of England is institutionally homophobic, and produced a report (Pilling) that kept an open mind on praying away the gay. It's a state church, controls a third of English schools, and is increasingly moving into welfare. Evangelicalism is also a powerful force within the British elite (HTB and the rest).

The situation's better in Scotland, worse in Northern Ireland.
quote:
Tatchall almost certainly has a better grasp of the overall situation in Britain than you or I. And what he's talking about is two things. First undoing an injustice that sprang up in defence. (That injustice being bi-erasure). Second the final nail in the coffin of the opposition. People not caring. Homophobia being seen as incomprehensible.
Right with ya on bi-erasure, but Tatchell went beyond increasing bisexual visibility, to eliminating a gay identity. Of course he's doing it for libertarian reasons, but con-evo groups jump on this stuff, and twist it for their own agenda.

Tatchell is undoubtedly heroic, and very often right, but as illustrated by his disastrous '90s campaign to out bishops, he's got a blind spot when it comes to how religion works.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think one reason for the wide disagreement on what the article is saying is a misunderstanding of "sexual identity" and what it means for different groups.

Certainly what I've read so far on this discussion is consistent with my experience over the years: "sexual identity" referring more to how someone manages the social expression of their sexual preferences rather than those preferences themselves.

So rather than having "gay" as one of the most important aspects of self-identity, it becomes less important compared to "sporty", "intelligent", etc. Rather than hanging out with other gay men for companionship and support (and strength of numbers when needed), he might instead hang out with the jocks (translation: athletic types), the chess club, folk dancers, heavy metal band groupies, etc. That's possible because people are seen more for what they choose to do in the world rather than their sexual preferences.

I've seen this happen over the years, with race and gender as well as sexual preference (though it still is by no means universal.) Where in the past a group might have a token black, hispanic or woman (for whom that would often be the primary way others saw them) now such differences tend to be less significant - how people do their work and how they act are given much more importance than race, religion, gender, etc.

So to me this is all about how we relate our sexual preferences to society, rather than changing those preferences. Part of that (hanging out with the chess club rather than a group of gay friends, for example) then also allows for more fluidity in preferences because your social circle isn't defined by (and therefore threatened by) who you are attracted to.

Attraction is quirky: in my experience it is rare than any one person is attracted to all women or all men, for example, regardless of whether they consider themselves heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or other. There are many other factors, some social, some unexpected. We can look at our history and see trends (as Orfeo has described) but that doesn't always prepare us for what may happen later (as Gwai found out.)

So "gay", "straight", "lesbian", "bisexual", and other terms aren't going away because they no longer describe peoples' attractions, but rather because that isn't how people tend to be categorized in an accepting world. A few people may find a sudden unexpected attraction to someone of a type they hadn't previously expected (we've seen some stories like that on the ship) but that doesn't mean that everyone can change on a whim, or even that they are making a conscious choice about what sort of person they find attractive.


I used to imagine that I would marry a tall, willowy, blond woman who loved backpacking and outdoor sports. Ha! What I hadn't imagined was how important intelligence, facial expressions, thought patterns, world perspective, self-awareness, and other more intangible characteristics were to me. Since such attributes aren't necessarily gender-specific, I very well might have found a man (or person of indeterminate / unspecified gender) with such attributes equally attractive in spite of my previous history.

Life's like that sometimes.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[...] Certainly what I've read so far on this discussion is consistent with my experience over the years: "sexual identity" referring more to how someone manages the social expression of their sexual preferences rather than those preferences themselves. [...]

Great summary, and in a century or two, we may have reached that point. I hope we do.

In the here and now, we're not even close. The vast majority of the globe rejects LGBT equality. We shouldn't downplay the progress that's been made, but nor should we overestimate it. Gains in the West have provoked a furious backlash, in Nigeria, Uganda, and in Russia. It's only a matter of time before the backlash that fundies incited abroad is broadcast back home. That is, after all, its purpose.

Until there's an equal rights hegemony, eliminating an LGBT identiy, however well intentioned, will be shanghaied by conservatives and used against LGBT civil rights. It's already happened.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients".

Ex-gay groups commonly encourage their patients into heterosexual marriages. Presumably the patient receives regular heterosexual sex during those marriages. Perhaps they come to be conditioned to look forward to the sex, but it doesn't seem to make them any less gay long term and the marriages don't seem to last.

I imagine however that prostitutes are a reasonably frequently used tool. It's not hard to imagine a father, upon hearing his son claim to be gay, believing that his son just doesn't understand how good it feels to be with a woman and subsequently sending his son to a prostitute for some 'education' in the hope that it will 'make a man of him'.

Examples I've heard of ex-gay groups pursuing the methodology of sexual conditioning during the therapy process itself, have generally used porn rather than real people. Participants are stimulated to orgasm while watching porn involving a person of the opposite sex, and are conditioned to be sexually not stimulated (eg by receiving an electric shock whenever they start getting an erection) when watching porn involving a person of the same sex.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients".
Are you sure this has never been done? Not buying the whorehouse, but I guess the services of prostitutes have been used in this 'conversion therapy'.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember gay clients who had been advised by a psychiatrist to see a prostitute. Bonkers.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember gay clients who had been advised by a psychiatrist to see a prostitute. Bonkers.

This was pretty common advice in the 1950s and 1960s. Completely ineffective, but common.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

Great summary, and in a century or two, we may have reached that point. I hope we do.

That was, I think, the point of the original article: we are heading in that direction, especially in the younger generations. I've seen similar things happen enough in limited situations to know that the shift is possible, though it isn't always easy. (It takes conscious effort on the part of everyone involved to shift their expectations and thought processes.)

In the end it is about treating people as people, rather than abstract categories.


quote:

In the here and now, we're not even close. The vast majority of the globe rejects LGBT equality.

...

Until there's an equal rights hegemony, eliminating an LGBT identiy, however well intentioned, will be shanghaied by conservatives and used against LGBT civil rights...

Those who are threatened by equal rights and/or insist on discrimination / persecution (for any reason, not just Dead Horse issues) will always find an excuse.

But again the point of the article as I read it was that such labels would become superfluous when we stop trying to fit everyone into one of the categories and just accept them as they are. That's a very different perspective from the claim that, because we won't need such labels in the future, that the underlying differences don't really exist.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But again the point of the article as I read it was that such labels would become superfluous when we stop trying to fit everyone into one of the categories and just accept them as they are. That's a very different perspective from the claim that, because we won't need such labels in the future, that the underlying differences don't really exist.

Agreed. The point is that the differences won't matter.

To say that the differences don't really exist would seem to me like the claim sometimes made, in relation to race/racism, of being "colourblind" as if not seeing that one person has light skin and one person has dark skin.

It's defying reality to say that there is no difference in skin colour. The real issue is what significance someone ascribes to the difference. I'd say the significance is limited to a couple of things like propensity to get sunburnt and best colours of clothing to wear.

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

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Don't go getting all pedantic.

I'm not. My point is that there are many levels of submission that have naught to do with "feminine" qualities. Indeed, modern society, especially capitalistic ones, cannot exist without submission in some form. No subversion of "masculinity" needed.
Wasn't there some study done on chimps in which it was noted that beta males were much more efficient in passing along their genes because alpha males occupied so much time competing for alpha status that the betas could sneak around and court all the female chimps?

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
groups pursuing the methodology of sexual conditioning during the therapy process itself, have generally used porn rather than real people. Participants are stimulated to orgasm while watching porn involving a person of the opposite sex, and are conditioned to be sexually not stimulated (eg by receiving an electric shock whenever they start getting an erection) when watching porn involving a person of the same sex.

From a Psychological perspective this is clearly absolutely nuts. Sexuality is complicated and rooted in perception of self, ideas about Gender, masculinity and femininity...all sorts.

The idea that some simple Skinner inspired response conditioning is going to be of any use at all is just daft.

The root psychological causes of being gay (or for that matter) straight has very little to do with what visual imagery makes you aroused.

That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.

Sexuality is just far more complicated than what gets you off...

"Everything in life is really about sex, apart from sex, which is really about power"

Author unknown..but a great quote.

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Kelly Alves: Wasn't there some study done on chimps in which it was noted that beta males were much more efficient in passing along their genes because alpha males occupied so much time competing for alpha status that the betas could sneak around and court all the female chimps?
(Ssssh! You're spilling the beans here.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.

You say this as if there is some objective measure of attractiveness. The very fact that the man isn't aroused by his "stunningly attractive" wife suggests that TO HIM she isn't "stunningly attractive", even if YOU would happily take his place.

The very fact that some people are attracted to men and some to women puts the sword to the entire notion that we all agree on what is attractive. As does every preference we might have in relation to age, build, height, skin tone, eye colour or a million other things.

[ 05. September 2014, 11:01: 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.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the idea of 'possibly less physically attractive' is a nonsense really. I know men who like slim boyish women, and others who don't; there is no objective measure.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm aware of a considerable number of women who find Johnny Depp devastatingly handsome.

Can't see it myself. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a really excellent actor, very talented. I've just never fantasised about him asking me out on a date.

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

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.

You say this as if there is some objective measure of attractiveness. The very fact that the man isn't aroused by his "stunningly attractive" wife suggests that TO HIM she isn't "stunningly attractive", even if YOU would happily take his place.

The very fact that some people are attracted to men and some to women puts the sword to the entire notion that we all agree on what is attractive. As does every preference we might have in relation to age, build, height, skin tone, eye colour or a million other things.

Wow. I agree.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools