The ambiguity of sexuality.

[Saint Sims]

I often feel that I am the only one who thinks like this but for whatever reason I hate labels.

I've said it once I'll say it a million times, labels are limiting. Sexuality is a biological drive, the prefixes we attach to that naturally occurring behavior are socially driven and they massively limit us.

Think of it this way; if sexuality entails our sex drive and openness with sex-related things, why would you ever slap something on the front of it and restrict the freedom that sexuality gives us.

Now I believe that people can label me whatever they like; homo-hetero-bi-pan-a-sexual; whatever makes them happy. Personally, however, I don't label myself.

Let me explain.

While I suppose I would fit perfectly into the "homo"-sexual category, because I can only see myself marrying a man, I don't think that I necessarily would never become romantic with a woman.

Sexuality, the natural drive to have sex, is nondiscriminatory. We don't love someone for their genitals, sure we have our preference but you can love someone regardless of what they have tucked away, and you don't love someone because of their gender. Love is open in this sense, and again, why would you place any limiters on it?

I believe, as so many people throughout history have, that people are just sexual. While many people have stated that their beliefs aligns people more towards bisexuality, I just see people as sexual.

If you look through the facts of history and bring out own lives under the microscope and really analyze things, everything sort of fits with this belief.

The red-head from Desperate Housewives for example, she was married to a man had two or three kids with him and later divorced him because she fell in love with a woman. She never before considered herself a lesbian but was open to the idea of following her heart.

James Dean has always been speculated as being homo or even bi-sexual because of reported sexual ventures with other men, though those incidences were also assumed to have been career boosters. However, James Dean was considered to be, and fittingly so, described to be sexual ambiguous.

This is what I believe myself to be and what I believe all people to be; sexually ambiguous.

Dissect the two parts. Sexuality we already know, ambiguity on the other hand is essentially describes something as being "indefinite".

This fits perfectly, in my mind; love is something that cannot be defined, it's nondiscriminatory and indefinite; as is sexuality.

So, long story short, I consider myself to be sexually ambiguous and regard all people, their beliefs and preferences aside, as such.

Discussion: What are you thoughts on this? Do you agree? Why do you disagree? Am I wrong with where I stand? Have you ever thought this way? What do you believe?

 

[Cervael]

I just ended up writing this massively long reply but then I saw Katze's post and was like "uh durr, that's basically what I was trying to say" with the slight change that I do feel sexually attracted to girls but not so much guys. But I can become romantically attracted to anyone.

I think, as it's just as important to not really label yourself, that it's also important to realize that there ARE people out there who feel and see it the way you do. Who says that it's wrong that way? It's just as right as how Katze sees it and just as right as how I see it..and anyone else comes along. It's all preferences! I think to some people, sexuality is nondiscriminatory, or romance is nondiscriminatory, both are or none are.

It seems like you find both romance and sexuality as nondiscriminatory? (correct me if I'm wrong! smile ) If so, that's okay! Personally, I find the male genitalia completely repulsive (sorry guys! I still love you as people! heart ) But I still feel like I could be romantic with a guy. I've flip flopped in the past with the idea of possibly being asexual to an extent. So I can picture myself in some sort of a relationship with an asexual guy.


Sexuality/romance/people...such complex things!! Gahh!! lol But, alas, there is my confusing, jumbled up, two-cents.  

[ForeverDreamWithinADream]

I am similar to Katze, but not quite. Physically I can be attracted to all sorts of people and even said out how how someone looks really good, of course never told me or said anything about that or even really questioned it, so I just thought everyone was like that.

Sexually, that is a different matter. I need to have a strong emotional bond and know the person before I can even think about them in a sexual manner. So love and sex, though at times go hand in hand, doesn't necessarily always go together.

Labels just confuse me really, I swear there is a new one everyday and new terms, etc....I can't kept up or keep track of them all. D:

Personally, I don't know what my future would be like. Right now I have a crush on a new friend but that isn't too common as I tend to get attached to people when I start getting to know and feel around them, it's the relationship part and sexual part I have problems with.  

[Esiris]

Der Fluch des Pharao

I've said it once I'll say it a million times, labels are limiting.

I still think the science doesn't support this as an overarching truth because what becomes truly limiting is the bigotry people express. Labels in general are neutral and there are some labels that are turned into weapons- but language itself doesn't do that in a vaccuum.

Quote:

why would you ever slap something on the front of it and restrict the freedom that sexuality gives us.

I think you have the assumption backwards- people have certain drives and directons- and to communicate that words and concepts are developed to describe that.

Quote:

Sexuality, the natural drive to have sex, is nondiscriminatory.

The Kinsey studies showed this isn't completely true- there are people who cannot experience arousal in certain situations. They're rare, but they exist.

I'm one of them- because I have an impossible time developing and sustaining arousal towards someone who is non-bianry. The reason is because their non-binary gender triggers my gender dysphoria.

Quote:

We don't love someone for their genitals, sure we have our preference but you can love someone regardless of what they have tucked away, and you don't love someone because of their gender. Love is open in this sense, and again, why would you place any limiters on it?

The simple answer- and don't take it as insulting, because it isn't meant to deminish or attack you- but the simple answer is that because not everyone functions like you. You know that- because in the past that has hurt you a great deal, but it is true. The only difference between that being ok and it being bigotry is if the people who aren't like you are as willing to accept and treat you as an equal as you are towards them.

Quote:

I believe, as so many people throughout history have, that people are just sexual. While many people have stated that their beliefs aligns people more towards bisexuality, I just see people as sexual.

When I took the Kinsey scale test- I tested at a 3 on the long factor.
I have a friend who tests as asexual- so I think it's important to remember that people are different and that ignoring them is hurtful.

Quote:

If you look through the facts of history and bring out own lives under the microscope and really analyze things, everything sort of fits with this belief.

If you can- take a look at "Asexuality: Prevalence and Associated Factorsin a National Probability Sample" by Bogart. I'll post the MLA information below.

I think the problem with looking at "the facts of history" is that historically- sexuality wasn't studied in a way that really put things "under a microscope" and analyze things. In the past- there just wasn't the structure of the Scientific Method, or peer review, or anything like that.

Quote:

This is what I believe myself to be and what I believe all people to be; sexually ambiguous.

I think part of the problem with this is that it's as bad as when homophobes tell lesbians that they just need to "meet the right man"- taking away their right to self-identify and underminding who they are because of their personal issues.

The thing is, when you describe yourself, you really do fit under the lable of Pansexual with male preference. And that's how the labels and Kinsey Scale and stuff works- it starts with a base and self-understanding and then you add qualifiers.

My reasons for disagreement mostly come from Gender and Sexuality studies-
First, there is a concept of "sexual agency"

"'Sexual agency' is the ability to make sexual choices according to one's will, free from coercion. Experiencing oneself as a sexual agent means feeling in control of one's sexual decisions and experiences" (Pittard & Robinson).

But when you look at what includes coercion, you have societal factors- and if you were to scale up your perspective so it would be a social norm, you'd be undermining the people who do not experience sexual attaction at all.

Then there's the language aspect of what you think- the Hall and Crisp study "Replecations and Refinement: Self-Activation and Out-Group Contrast" showed that there are positive and negative impacts when it comes to label use- so if labels were the problem themselves, there would only be negative impacts in the same way that if guns were the problem, only good people would be shot- but since guns, like language, is a tool- the tool can be used to both hurt and help.
This is where the Cross and Epting study is REALLY important- it outlines both the pitfalls and the benefits of the labels specifically addressing gay men.
Then there are the Kinsey papers- but I think those should be updated.

I had another 6 or 8 references in another thread at one point- so if you want more I can look those up.


Here are a few that you might be interested in reading, I hope you don't mind mixed up MLA but Gaia doesn't let me format very well.

Bogaert, Anthony F. "Asexuality: Prevalence And Associated Factors In A National Probability Sample." Journal Of Sex Research 41.3 (2004): 279-287. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Aug. 2012.

CROSS, MALCOLM, and FRANZ EPTING. "Self-Obliteration, Self-Definition, Self-Integration: Claiming A Homosexual Identity." Journal Of Constructivist Psychology 18.1 (2005): 53-63. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Aug. 2012.


Hall, Natalie R., and Richard J. Crisp. "REPLICATIONS AND REFINEMENTS: Self-Activation And Out-Group Contrast." Journal Of Social Psychology 150.5 (2010): 423-427. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Aug. 2012.

Pittard, Rachel and Rachel Robinson. "Identifying Women’s “Sexual Agency” in their Reports of First Sexual Encounters: A Qualitative Study". Hanover College (200 cool .  

[Esiris]

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Labels just confuse me really, I swear there is a new one everyday and new terms, etc....I can't kept up or keep track of them all. D:

That might keep going that way for a few more centuries- but our understanding of identity and labels will end up improving eventually. cat_whee

Quote:

Personally, I don't know what my future would be like. Right now I have a crush on a new friend but that isn't too common as I tend to get attached to people when I start getting to know and feel around them, it's the relationship part and sexual part I have problems with.

In psychology- they call this the "Coolidge effect".  

[ForeverDreamWithinADream]

Esiris

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Labels just confuse me really, I swear there is a new one everyday and new terms, etc....I can't kept up or keep track of them all. D:

That might keep going that way for a few more centuries- but our understanding of identity and labels will end up improving eventually. cat_whee

Quote:

Personally, I don't know what my future would be like. Right now I have a crush on a new friend but that isn't too common as I tend to get attached to people when I start getting to know and feel around them, it's the relationship part and sexual part I have problems with.

In psychology- they call this the "Coolidge effect".

Hmm...I never heard of the Coolidge effect before.  

[Esiris]

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Hmm...I never heard of the Coolidge effect before.

I think it's neat- I know I've experienced it too.  

[Saint Sims]

Katze Allemon-Schatten

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Cervael

Oh balls. Sorry guys! I totally forgot to add this in because I totally overlooked it.

Asexuality, to me, would be the only other alternative to sexuality (sexually ambiguous, what have you) because in principle it is the lack of sexual drive (if I'm not mistaken).

And I don't mean to use love and sex interchangeably, that is not how I view the world at all. I suppose I forgot to clarify a bit.

Love and sex, are similar to me in that they are nondiscriminatory. Naturally, however, we all have our preferences in who our ideal mate is, that's a given, but for myself and I'm sure many others have experienced "outliers" or "exceptions" to our guidelines in regards to who we ideally are sexually attracted to or imagine falling in love with. The nondiscriminatory part is that there are exceptions, there are feelings for people that we can't explain or attribute to anything other than the fact that we feel them. That would be where the ambiguity comes from, because they aren't really exceptions to anything.

Now in terms of genitals, of course we prefer one or the other and some repulse us. That's just how it is but just because you aren't attractive to male genitals doesn't mean you wouldn't have feelings for man. Perhaps not sexually but romantically, why not? A man is not a p***s, and a p***s is not a man, if that makes sense.

Esiris

Just because science doesn't mean it's untrue, religious ideals would be a perfect example (but I won't get into that debate). I get what you mean about the stigmatizing that people do but labels, as a whole, can not be viewed as all neutral. The prefixes attached to orientation are a prime example! They're limiters, homosexual: only attracted to people of the same gender, heterosexual: only attracted to people of the opposite gender...etc.

This next part I understand what you mean but I feel you misinterpret what I meant. Expression of who you are through selective wording is fabulous, it allows others to get a sense of who you are and where you stand. This is the opposite of ambiguity, and kind of where I pull away from the straight and narrow. Where others would gladly express a definite concept of who they are, I prefer the indefinite, the ability for others to assess and concede who I am as of their own opinions. This, for me at least, allows me "play room" I suppose, I can freely express myself without having to stay true or fill inhibited by any one thing. I didn't really make that clear here, but I hope I conveyed what I meant.

As for the Kinsey study, if you don't have a sexual drive then what I stated doesn't much apply. To be void of sexuality (void may not be the best word) would mean that you don't have the drive to pursue and appease sexual desires, so of course you would be unambiguous here.

I think I covered this bit above and don't worry, I get where you come from more now, Esiris, c: no hard feelings here. I totally get that people don't see as I do and that's perfectly okay. Naturally, I'm going to have a hard time, as will the others vice verse, being able to totally wrap my head around how others think, because of course we're all independent thinkers.

Again, I didn't mean to exclude asexuality, I just totally overlooked it as a whole because I do understand it, to a well enough degree I suppose. Perhaps, because I was only addressing sexuality and the ambiguity in regards to it that I didn't think to mention that asexuality because the entirety of message would not apply. I didn't mean to ignore but it just happened like that >.<

Now I'm not meaning to say that sexuality should have been studied then but what I am saying is that now, in present day when we have questions or misunderstandings, perhaps, that if we look to history and observe the behaviors and relationships or those past, as far back as ancient times, we can correlate to present day questions and ideas.

In no way would I ever compare what I am saying to that of a homophobe. I get why you did however, and I see what you mean. But again, I feel it's a misinterpretation. Of course, I did make a bold statement without analyzing and consider alternatives and asexuality.

I get that people label themselves, I'm fine with that. It's fine. But in regards to myself and how I go through life and understand things, I could not for the life of me label myself. The ambiguity of things keeps life interesting to me, keeps it open. I'm not saying that everyone need agree with me but my intentions with this were to only see if others felt similarly. As well, I get that I sort of fit under pansexuality but for me it doesn't feel right, or fit myself personality I suppose, as to label myself. Because I see myself, as all people do, how I am, meaning that the way people perceive me or view me does not, in part, reflect upon how I see myself. I always take in to account various things people have to say and appropriately adjust as well as I can but just because someone sees me as an immature ignorant child, doesn't mean to me that I am, ever was, or ever will be. Likewise, say that is someone understands my position and my life and the only way they can wrap their head around it is to label it as homosexuality or pansexualiy, then by all means. But for myself, and how I operate, it is better for me to remain ambiguous.

I'm just a jerk when it comes to labels, I'll be honest. I hate them, especially when it comes to sexuality, and I will never accept them as a part of my own life. I don't want to view people as homo or hetero or bi (asexual sure ahaha), I like people to remain indefinite and exponential, its what I understand and find to be true in my life.

Certainly, no one need to see this as I do, nor do I find anyone who disagrees to be inferior. I accept the way others think as I would hope they do me. I only wish for someone to perhaps see where my head is at and perhaps be able to reciprocate such complex and disorganized thoughts.

c:

Woooo. I'm winded.

 

[Saint Sims]

Oh and if I may reiterate (or just iterate);

Just because I don't view sexuality in terms of the prefixes (with the exception of asexual) it doesn't mean that I don't recognize the existence of people who are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. I recognize and accept all those things but for me, in truth, in my opinion, whatever you want to call it, I believe sexuality is ambiguous, it is indefinite and exponential, uninhibited and all inclusive. As well, I understand and except that someone people are not sexual or sexually driven.

I only wanted to clarify

c:

Because I loves all yous bishes jus' the way you is.

 

[Esiris]

Der Fluch des Pharao

Just because science doesn't mean it's untrue, religious ideals would be a perfect example (but I won't get into that debate).

Ok- so what science does is it looks at a falsifiable claim, tests it, then analyzes that test in terms of observable facts that any reasonable person has to accept as fact.

I'm pretty sure that religious views aren't included because they're not falsifiable, so that should explain that one counter example you brought up. The other example, like your argument about how everyone is sexual and has no orientation is falsifiable- basically people get hooked up to machines to measure brain activity and do quantitative tests on blood flow and stuff.

Quote:

I get what you mean about the stigmatizing that people do but labels, as a whole, can not be viewed as all neutral. The prefixes attached to orientation are a prime example! They're limiters, homosexual: only attracted to people of the same gender, heterosexual: only attracted to people of the opposite gender...etc.

And there are people who experience attraction like that- I think your ideas about labels are backwards (literally- not insultingly) that is, I think you look at the discrimination and think there is a causation by starting at the end and going back.

What the studies I posted here and in the other thread show is that it's the other way around- that, for example, I am attracted to people who are binary gendered, but my dysphroia kills any other options for me. Because of this I can identify as bi-sexual to the exclusion of pansexuality- it's part of my hardwiring.

Quote:

Where others would gladly express a definite concept of who they are, I prefer the indefinite, the ability for others to assess and concede who I am as of their own opinions. This, for me at least, allows me "play room" I suppose, I can freely express myself without having to stay true or fill inhibited by any one thing. I didn't really make that clear here, but I hope I conveyed what I meant.

I think I covered this bit above and don't worry, I get where you come from more now, Esiris, c: no hard feelings here. I totally get that people don't see as I do and that's perfectly okay. Naturally, I'm going to have a hard time, as will the others vice verse, being able to totally wrap my head around how others think, because of course we're all independent thinkers.

This helps fix things that have not only been a problem in this thread- but in the past, thanks!

Quote:

As for the Kinsey study, if you don't have a sexual drive then what I stated doesn't much apply. To be void of sexuality (void may not be the best word) would mean that you don't have the drive to pursue and appease sexual desires, so of course you would be unambiguous here.

That's cool- but the Kinsey studies also talk about people who are "hard set" straight or gay. I like the scale they use, and I like the use of the terms hetero-flexable and homo-flexable too, which describes the 2's and 4's on the scale.

Quote:

Now I'm not meaning to say that sexuality should have been studied then but what I am saying is that now, in present day when we have questions or misunderstandings, perhaps, that if we look to history and observe the behaviors and relationships or those past, as far back as ancient times, we can correlate to present day questions and ideas.

I think we're starting to see a lot more of that- but I also think we can run into problems when looking at history for answers. One good example is the kind of Ancient Greek sex between older men and boys- it was a kind of sexual exploitation that was wide-spread in the same way that raping slaves in the US was common on plantations. I really think our best tools for understanding sexuality exist in the modern era- not only for objective information (from biological tests) but for the cultural context too.

Quote:

In no way would I ever compare what I am saying to that of a homophobe. I get why you did however, and I see what you mean. But again, I feel it's a misinterpretation. Of course, I did make a bold statement without analyzing and consider alternatives and asexuality.

Being able to work back and refine a thesis is the sign of a great mind in my book. cat_3nodding

Quote:

I get that people label themselves, I'm fine with that. It's fine. But in regards to myself and how I go through life and understand things, I could not for the life of me label myself. The ambiguity of things keeps life interesting to me, keeps it open. I'm not saying that everyone need agree with me but my intentions with this were to only see if others felt similarly. As well, I get that I sort of fit under pansexuality but for me it doesn't feel right, or fit myself personality I suppose, as to label myself. Because I see myself, as all people do, how I am, meaning that the way people perceive me or view me does not, in part, reflect upon how I see myself. I always take in to account various things people have to say and appropriately adjust as well as I can but just because someone sees me as an immature ignorant child, doesn't mean to me that I am, ever was, or ever will be. Likewise, say that is someone understands my position and my life and the only way they can wrap their head around it is to label it as homosexuality or pansexualiy, then by all means. But for myself, and how I operate, it is better for me to remain ambiguous.

That makes Perfect Sense! I totally respect that.

Quote:

I'm just a jerk when it comes to labels, I'll be honest. I hate them, especially when it comes to sexuality, and I will never accept them as a part of my own life. I don't want to view people as homo or hetero or bi (asexual sure ahaha), I like people to remain indefinite and exponential, its what I understand and find to be true in my life.

I think that can be tricky- because in some ways you're not giving other people the same thing you ask of them. cat_sweatdrop

Quote:

Certainly, no one need to see this as I do, nor do I find anyone who disagrees to be inferior. I accept the way others think as I would hope they do me. I only wish for someone to perhaps see where my head is at and perhaps be able to reciprocate such complex and disorganized thoughts.

If it helps- after this post I think I have a really good idea about where you're coming from. I know we tangled on this in the past and it didn't end well, but this feels a lot better and I think we're on the same page. I'm still a little twitchy over the labels, but it has more to do with things not being consistent in practice than it has to do with what you think and why.

And I totally understand the whole attraction as a shade of preference and degrees instead of absolutes- I think most people exist on a scale, but I've seen some freaky brain-scans from people who defy that too, and I'm always afraid that when I generalize, I also ignore or undermine them and they need the support as much as I do. cat_sweatdrop

Posts get so long when we start talking to each other! cat_xp  

[Saint Sims]

Esiris

I know right?

Ahaha. And I have no qualms with any of your replies so this post will be short.

I definitely get where you come from and how difficult I am with my belief system, especially in relation to this subject, I'm just so hard set, in so of myself, that I am uncompromising. Needless to say, however, and already stated, I don't project that prejudice on to others, often at least, and readily accept how people view themselves, even if that isn't my forté.

I swear that post of mine took a good half-hour, forty-five minutes, to type up but the thoroughness of it helped get my point-across I suppose, so it was time well spent c:

 

[loonaboots]

Der Fluch des Pharao

i don't know if this has been answered yet, but you can be asexual and still have a sex drive.

personally, i identify as asexual because i have never been sexually attracted to someone, and while i could see myself having sex, i wouldn't have sex if i has the choice. i do, however, have a sex drive, and i can see myself marrying someone (most of the time it's a girl, for some reason). emotion_yatta

although i can see myself dating almost anyone, i do say i'm asexual because it's somehow hard for people to wrap their head around the idea that i don't experience sexual attraction. if more people understood that it's not some mental problem that needs to be fixed, i probably wouldn't label my sexuality.

 

[san polo]

i agree with your perspective on labels, i think in some way they are limiting. If you identify yourself as a gay man the label holds a large responsibility in forming an identity. The amount of people i know who exploit their sexuality in this way, because being gay is such a distinguishing label. i think theres a lot of difference between a gay man than there is a man who has sex with guys. but at the same time there are many straight people who also exploit their sexuality. i think what i'm trying to say is that the whole concept of sexuality is a huge grey area, and i agree with the idea the to label restricts or negates. for example i know plenty of 'straight' people who are attracted to the same sex, but would never act on this because of the preconceptions such a label like gay or lesbian would carry with it. so yes i think many people are just sexual, maybe not in such a simplistic way but i see where your coming from.  

[Shanna66]

i think having some basic labels is useful, like straight, asexual, gay or bi for things like dating. just so you know what your chances are with a person or to let other people know what their chances with you are

i do feel like we have way too many labels and we put alot of importance on them, way more than we should

i dont use labels on myself as much anymore because im married. if someone asks ill usually say im a bisexual just to keep think things simple and is a good way to describe what im attracted to