The Student Room Group

Is it right to label sexuality?

Scroll to see replies

I'm bi, in terms of labels, but I don't much like labels. People assume (if they're prepared to accept that bisexuals exist at all, which some don't, labelling us as 'sluts' or 'gays in denial' - first hand experience :P ) that straight people are solely attracted to the other gender, gay people are solely attracted to the same gender, and bi people like both genders absolutely equally. And there is nothing else. Which isn't the case - it isn't nearly that black and white. What about transsexual/ transgender/ pansexual/ asexual/ miscellaneous people? That is the 'label' they find most comfortable, but it's still restrictive. Tbh, I'd rather just live in a world where people can go,

"Hey, I love this person. I am in a relationship with this humanoid here. *points* And it doesn't say anything about me, and their gender/sexuality or my gender/sexuality isn't a part of it, and it doesn't force any labels on me, and the media or the people around me can't force me into a mould just because I am in love with this particular person. I am, just simply, in love with them. And we're gonna get ice cream now. Cookie dough. Because ice cream can have labels, but people shouldn't."

Peace! :biggrin:
Reply 81
Fine let's not label people.I am perfectly fine with this.I self identify as a gay man but I think this is done mostly to underline the fact that I am not attracted to women (well ok I have had sex with women when I was younger,but honestly who hasnt when they were trying to figure out was it's going on with them?).Unfortunately just because of the way I look people assume I am straight.Back in the past I would welcome this,not anymore.

If we ever reach a point that no stigma is attached to non heterosexual orientations then I would not feel the need to label my self as gay.Everyone would be free to be themselves and enjoy the same rights.Until then I think I will continue to label my self as gay mostly in the context of activism and also in order to inform potential love interests on where I stand.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 82
Original post by Kabloomybuzz
It wasn't just Athens, but Greece. And it was paedophilic homosexuality really. It only applied to 'citizens' but it was expected that they take in a young boy to show him how to become a citizen. The boy giving the man sexual 'favours' was all part of this. The man would never pleasure the boy... But when the boy became a citizen he could have his own paedika.

Also, citizens, who were only male, had the right to sex with anyone who wasn't a citizen if he chose. Man, woman or child. But not other citizens and their wives.

So yes, homosexual behaviour was accepted and expected, but it was a cultural thing that we could never imagine calling moral in todays society and miles away from anything we could understand, so its not really a good base for comparison in this discussion


I think Athens is the only place they have much evidence for it, although it may well have gone on in other cities.
Even if we believe the specific acts to be immoral today, the sexuality is still comparable and very interesting, although more complicated than we assume today. I'm waiting for 'Homosexuality in Ancient Athens' by Joseph R Laurin to arrive, so I'll be able to understand it a bit better then!
Reply 83
Actually the sacred band of Thebes has been consistently the most well documented example of acceptance of homosexuality in ancient Greece among adult men.Around 100 strictly monogamous gay couples ( numbers of the gay couples vary according to various authors) were sent in the battles and were fighting next to each other.The idea was that the soldiers would fight better when their partner was faced with severe danger.One would protect the other and it kinda seems logical given the fact that one would assume that soldiers would be more motivated to keep their partners safe during the battle.Actually the sacred band of Thebes had a pretty amazing track record of success and wining various battles.

All the other cases in ancient Greece would stigmatize male homosexuality among consenting adults (even though there was a reference from Plato that at least one gay couple in ancient Athens was well respected in Athenian society).What seemed to be more acceptable from society was the idea that older men could engage in sexual activities with younger (underage) boys.Some references of homoerotic behavior exists in ancient Sparta as well but there it was even more stigmatized due to the fierce polemic Spartan culture and gay men were ostracized immediately by Spartan society.

At least that is what they taught us (or what I remember anyway) in school in Greece:smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by DavidH20
Just a thought I've had for a while:

If somebody says "I'll only date black men," or "I'm only attracted to blonde women with massive breasts," it isn't (generally) acceptable - it's seen as shallow, or even discriminatory, to only be attracted to a certain group of people because of physical qualities. Should it not be the same for saying "I'm only attracted to men/women?"

For example, I am male and have only ever been attracted to women, and if asked would call myself 'straight.' But I don't think that I should: I haven't met every man in the world, much less got to know them closely, and though there is no precedent, it is entirely possible that I would meet a man whom I am romantically attracted to.

Surely people shouldn't make sweeping generalisations such as this without full evidence: if we remove the romantic element and say, for example: "I hate all black people," this is considered wrong, as whilst someone may have disliked every black person they've met, they can't rightfully apply that to the entirety of the group. Why should it be different for romantic attraction to a gender?

Just wondering if anybody else has an opinion on the matter :smile:


By this definition then, do you feel that compliments like "you're the most beautiful girl in the world" are wrong because you haven't seen every girl in the world?
I'm not trying to start an argument I was just curious :smile:
Original post by OccuPsy
Fine let's not label people.I am perfectly fine with this.I self identify as a gay man but I think this is done mostly to underline the fact that I am not attracted to women (well ok I have had sex with women when I was younger,but honestly who hasnt when they were trying to figure out was it's going on with them?).Unfortunately just because of the way I look people assume I am straight.Back in the past I would welcome this,not anymore.

If we ever reach a point that no stigma is attached to non heterosexual orientations then I would not feel the need to label my self as gay.Everyone would be free to be themselves and enjoy the same rights.Until then I think I will continue to label my self as gay mostly in the context of activism and also in order to inform potential love interests on where I stand.


Yeah. Unfortunately it is like the term "gay" is relevent in order to make people understand your sexual preferences but why should you have to label it?
I agree with what you're saying :/
Reply 86
Original post by BlahBlaBlahBla
By this definition then, do you feel that compliments like "you're the most beautiful girl in the world" are wrong because you haven't seen every girl in the world?
I'm not trying to start an argument I was just curious :smile:


Yes, essentially. Although I have used such phrases before, colloquially using the term "the world" to mean "the world which I have experienced." Like saying "you're as strong as a lion" doesn't mean you actually believe the person in question has the physical strength as a lion.

This train of thought reminds me somewhat of Shakespeare's 'Sonnet 130'.
Original post by DavidH20
Yes, essentially. Although I have used such phrases before, colloquially using the term "the world" to mean "the world which I have experienced." Like saying "you're as strong as a lion" doesn't mean you actually believe the person in question has the physical strength as a lion.

This train of thought reminds me somewhat of Shakespeare's 'Sonnet 130'.


Ahh I see :smile:
Thanks for the explanation too :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest