The Student Room Group

Bisexuality, and the importance of a public sexual identities.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AngryJellyfish
Sounds like segregation to me! :zomg:


I go to both but I'm straight.

What does this mean?

I'm confused.
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
The fact is that at the moment we need sexual identities and we need to be unashamed of talking about them, as there is still too much bigotry in the world to shy away from labels. When everyone understands and accepts the variance of human sexuality we can begin to discard labels, but until then they are necessary.


It's a shame that's the way you're treated by potential partners.

Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but surely labeling individuals makes bigotry easier. It's easy to insult the person who clearly labels themselves.
Whereas labeling relationships, and focusing on the personality aspect of attraction makes it a lot harder, no?
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
It's a shame that's the way you're treated by potential partners.

Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but surely labeling individuals makes bigotry easier. It's easy to insult the person who clearly labels themselves.
Whereas labeling relationships, and focusing on the personality aspect of attraction makes it a lot harder, no?


But it isn't our job to make it harder for bigots to identify us. Bigots should be hiding who they are, not us.
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
But it isn't our job to make it harder for bigots to identify us. Bigots should be hiding who they are, not us.


It's not about hiding who you are.

Individual labels make segregation and discrimination far easier. Movements in response to these labels turn those with an something as harmless as irrational fear or slight mistrust into "bigots". Using a label does not remove bigotry.
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
My point is that your sexual interests shouldn't be used to define you, and if you are in a relationship, then the descriptors "gay/straight" would be used to describe that relationship.
You wouldn't be "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" at any one time. You'd be Jenx301, your past relationships or attraction criteria completely irrelevant to who you are.


I think the problem with that is that people use labels like gay/straight/bi/asexual/whatever as part of the way they describe their identity. If you remove those labels and put them onto a relationship instead, it's almost as if you're saying that the relationship is that identity. If that makes any sense? I mean how I choose to define myself is independent of who I am or am not dating at any given point. If someone is asexual and in a relationship with someone, of any gender, that doesn't change their identity. Whether they have sex with their partner or not that doesn't change anything because identity is a self-defined thing. I kind of get what you're trying to say but I just think it wouldn't necessarily work for everyone. If I was dating someone, that wouldn't change my orientation in any way, removing the labels I use to define myself and replacing it with "gay" or "straight" depending on the gender of who I was dating just wouldn't feel right. Even though it's not the case, it would feel as though entering that relationship would involve a loss of identity. But then I'm also one of the people who wouldn't want to change their name if they married because I'm attached to my name and I wouldn't want to give that up for someone else.
Original post by moonkatt
I go to both but I'm straight.

What does this mean?

I'm confused.


Then you probably like cheap drinks or a certain type of music, or even the decor :smile:

(Should've added a qualifier to my analogy "- to look for a potential partner")
Original post by aspirinpharmacist
I think the problem with that is that people use labels like gay/straight/bi/asexual/whatever as part of the way they describe their identity. If you remove those labels and put them onto a relationship instead, it's almost as if you're saying that the relationship is that identity. If that makes any sense? I mean how I choose to define myself is independent of who I am or am not dating at any given point. If someone is asexual and in a relationship with someone, of any gender, that doesn't change their identity. Whether they have sex with their partner or not that doesn't change anything because identity is a self-defined thing. I kind of get what you're trying to say but I just think it wouldn't necessarily work for everyone. If I was dating someone, that wouldn't change my orientation in any way, removing the labels I use to define myself and replacing it with "gay" or "straight" depending on the gender of who I was dating just wouldn't feel right. Even though it's not the case, it would feel as though entering that relationship would involve a loss of identity. But then I'm also one of the people who wouldn't want to change their name if they married because I'm attached to my name and I wouldn't want to give that up for someone else.


I understand what you're saying. I have a bit of a phobia of monogamous commitment. I doubt I'll ever want to marry, but if I do, I probably wouldn't even consider changing my surname.


I don't think someone should change their individual identity dependent on who they're dating. I think those individual identities such as "gay" "straight" and "bi" should be removed altogether. Your personal identity should be kept separate from both your current relationship status and those labels.
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
It's not about hiding who you are.

Individual labels make segregation and discrimination far easier. Movements in response to these labels turn those with an something as harmless as irrational fear or slight mistrust into "bigots". Using a label does not remove bigotry.


I'd argue that removing labels doesn't remove bigotry either. The terms we use to define orientations are relatively new, but that doesn't change the fact that people who exhibited attraction to someone of the same gender as them were discriminated against in the past without actually have a clear way of defining that attraction. The other thing is that having that label is very important to some people, I can only really speak in the context of asexuals but there is a general attitude that it's weird or abnormal not to want sex. People can just about understand abstaining from it for religious reasons or whatever but it's viewed as something that's very difficult, and a lot of people can't get their head round the idea that there are people who just aren't sexually attracted to anyone. And a lot of asexual people talk about feeling relieved when they realised there was a label for it, because all of a sudden it's not just some weird feeling they thought nobody else experienced, but an actual identity. So for a lot of those people actually having a label to describe how they experience attraction is really important. I mean yes you could talk about asexual relationships but there are asexual people who will enter into relationships with someone of the same gender or a different gender to themselves and have sex with them because they want children or they want to make their partner happy, or whatever. Removing someone's ability to describe the kind of attraction they feel doesn't change societal attitudes towards someone with that orientation.
God I hope that TSR users aren't representative of the average young person or we're all screwed.

It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?

But with the sexual revolutions we saw the increase of promiscuity and sexual diseases all under the guise of sexual liberation.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
I understand what you're saying. I have a bit of a phobia of monogamous commitment. I doubt I'll ever want to marry, but if I do, I probably wouldn't even consider changing my surname.


I don't think someone should change their individual identity dependent on who they're dating. I think those individual identities such as "gay" "straight" and "bi" should be removed altogether. Your personal identity should be kept separate from both your current relationship status and those labels.


I suppose that makes sense. I think it's a nice idea in theory I just personally like having the language to describe how I experience attraction and I don't think I'd enjoy it if I didn't have those terms available to me. Identity is important to a lot of people and so is having the ability to define it to themselves and other people. It shouldn't matter, but in the same way that calling myself English or British shouldn't matter. It's not a problem with the labels really, it's the way people react to certain types of people. Humans want to feel a sense of community but we also like to feel a sense of individual identity and I think we just need to reach a point where people don't get angry about the fact that someone elses identity is different to our own, and get rid of preconceptions about people based on the label they use.

Sorry this is really vague I'm really sleepy.
Original post by EndIsNear
God I hope that TSR users aren't representative of the average young person or we're all screwed.

It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?

But with the sexual revolutions we saw the increase of promiscuity and sexual diseases all under the guise of sexual liberation.


No one is more obsessed with sex than the lunatics who think it is purely about procreation. If that was the case there would be no pleasure in sex at all. Our bodies and our hormones allow us to enjoy sex.

Think about, who is the more obsessed with food, the mildly overweight or the anorexic?
Original post by EndIsNear
God I hope that TSR users aren't representative of the average young person or we're all screwed.

It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?

But with the sexual revolutions we saw the increase of promiscuity and sexual diseases all under the guise of sexual liberation.


I feel like there's a massive section of text I'm missing that would provide the much-needed context to understand this.

But then again I've only had two cups of coffee today.
Original post by aspirinpharmacist
I'd argue that removing labels doesn't remove bigotry either. The terms we use to define orientations are relatively new, but that doesn't change the fact that people who exhibited attraction to someone of the same gender as them were discriminated against in the past without actually have a clear way of defining that attraction. The other thing is that having that label is very important to some people, I can only really speak in the context of asexuals but there is a general attitude that it's weird or abnormal not to want sex. People can just about understand abstaining from it for religious reasons or whatever but it's viewed as something that's very difficult, and a lot of people can't get their head round the idea that there are people who just aren't sexually attracted to anyone. And a lot of asexual people talk about feeling relieved when they realised there was a label for it, because all of a sudden it's not just some weird feeling they thought nobody else experienced, but an actual identity. So for a lot of those people actually having a label to describe how they experience attraction is really important. I mean yes you could talk about asexual relationships but there are asexual people who will enter into relationships with someone of the same gender or a different gender to themselves and have sex with them because they want children or they want to make their partner happy, or whatever. Removing someone's ability to describe the kind of attraction they feel doesn't change societal attitudes towards someone with that orientation.


That in bold is an especially good point...which I don't really have an answer for. :smile:

These labels do create a feeling of belonging, which is especially important for sexual minorities who can be quite severely alienated. The downside for this is that they inadvertently create a kind of tribal culture, for which counter groups will be formed in response. It's an antagonistic cycle, in which radicals on both "sides" are continually created in response to the other. My solution to this is to focus on the relationships themselves, and remove the need for defending an orientation as you would an ideal. Unconscious acceptance is better than conscious resistance.

I think these labels should certainly still exist to describe that attraction, I just don't think they should be used as for group formation or for an overly large part of your identity. I admit, for the reasons you've stated and others, asexuality could be an exception to that rule.

Original post by aspirinpharmacist
I suppose that makes sense. I think it's a nice idea in theory I just personally like having the language to describe how I experience attraction and I don't think I'd enjoy it if I didn't have those terms available to me. Identity is important to a lot of people and so is having the ability to define it to themselves and other people. It shouldn't matter, but in the same way that calling myself English or British shouldn't matter. It's not a problem with the labels really, it's the way people react to certain types of people. Humans want to feel a sense of community but we also like to feel a sense of individual identity and I think we just need to reach a point where people don't get angry about the fact that someone elses identity is different to our own, and get rid of preconceptions about people based on the label they use.
Sorry this is really vague I'm really sleepy.


I've been more or less accepting that angry reaction as a constant in my argument and trying to work around it, but yeah, things would be a lot better if that were to be changed.
Original post by EndIsNear
It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?


I think the human race is doing a fine job of overpopulating the planet without those who aren't interested in procreation being forced to join in, but surely that's a debate for another thread?
Original post by EndIsNear
God I hope that TSR users aren't representative of the average young person or we're all screwed.

It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?

But with the sexual revolutions we saw the increase of promiscuity and sexual diseases all under the guise of sexual liberation.


Come on, 'fess up. What was your previous account called?
Original post by EndIsNear
God I hope that TSR users aren't representative of the average young person or we're all screwed.

It's bad enough young people are obsessed with sex they forget sex isn't just for fun but PROCREATION. You know that thing you do to carry on your genetics and keep the human race alive?

But with the sexual revolutions we saw the increase of promiscuity and sexual diseases all under the guise of sexual liberation.


Supporting @AngryJellyfish's point, the Malthusian principle

"Malthus observed that, while resources tended to grow arithmetically, populations exhibit exponential growth"

We do not need to increase our birth rate unnecessarily, or else we risk overpopulation.
Reply 36
Avatar for Hybris
Hybris
5
I understand what you're getting at here, in terms of bisexuality not needing to existent in modern society, and people should rejoice their sexuality, individually, upon their present relationship status? You yearn for a more universal approach on sexual identity, I do admire this, even though you do seem to be romancing a bit. My perspective on Bisexuality is that it is limited. How? Because it only looks at the stereotypical image of a man and a woman, But in this age we have found that minorities are beginning to be heard, e.g the androgynous female, or the feminine male, the Asexual, the gender neutral. i personally think that bisexuality is a sexual identity which is limited, which could maybe be the reason you feel that it doesn't need to be a sexual identity. I'm Pansexual! *lol oh my god another obscure sexual identity to shove down my throat.*

In my interpretation Pansexuality is more broad, maybe as broad as this 'people sexual' because it does not only take in regard the 'gender' of a person, many other elements are of importance, which is why some people who are pansexual may refer to themselves being 'gender blind'.

Pansexual - 'not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.' I Personally think Marcus Morgan is gesturing more towards this notion.
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
I move that the descriptors of gay and straight be used to describe relationships instead of the sexual identity of an individual, and that we should focus our campaigns on relationships over individuals. Doing so would save a lot of unnecessary confusion, and would hopefully help to do away with the labels that alienate and allow easy hate against those who have been been in gay relationships.
NO. This could not be more wrong. Campaigns must, must, must work for its actual members. Anyone claiming to represent LGBT issues, but not actual LGBT individuals, is a charlatan.

The gay rights movement has never been about being able to have sex - being in the closet is enough for that. It is about enabling people to live complete lives without discrimination or shame.


Original post by AdjectiveNoun
Alternatively, if a bisexual person is promiscuous, the details of casual encounters shouldn't usually be shared with anyone but their closest friends. Whether same-sex or different-sex, that detail is irrelevant again.
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
There is no such thing as a "bisexual" relationship, except in rare open relationships, the details of which once again, should not usually be shared publicly.
'Should' according to what authority? My last boyfriend was gay, and he slept with other men, and I slept with other men and women. We were both completely open about that, except where it would mean discrimination (e.g. his work, my landlord).


Original post by AdjectiveNoun
My attraction or lack thereof to specific genders is not open for discussion, especially considering as labeling myself as bisexual or not would undermine my point.
Actually it's fair that you should be open about what motivates your argument, and acknowledge your biases whatever they are.


Original post by AdjectiveNoun
To put it into crude terms. A gay guy goes to gay bars. A straight guy goes to regular bars. A bisexual can go to either, and will act as and be treated appropriately depending on which.
Actually I don't act as a straight man (whatever precisely that means) - and I'm certainly not treated like one. The fact that I have sex with men basically means I'm out of the question for a lot of women. Supposedly some bi men get treated differently by gay men and women, although I've never noticed this (maybe because I pass for gay better than straight). Bi girls seem to have a different experience again.



What you call 'labels' are what allowed a gay rights movement to exist at all. That doesn't mean that we have to create alternative norms of sexuality, but they are useful. I don't use 'bisexual' as a word to describe myself - partly because I'm not in the habit of describing my sexuality at all - partly because I don't think I necessarily have anything in common with other people who call themselves bisexual. But I do have a gay/bisexual/queer identity. Not because I chose one, but because that's how I'm understood by other people and that affects how I live (family, social, and professional life as well as love life).

What you say would make sense if we were all snowflakes and relationships were unmediated connections of souls. But that's not the case. Everything we do is in a gendered context, against a background of normative sexualities. The aim of gay rights is solidarity, not dissolution.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AdjectiveNoun
Individual labels make segregation and discrimination far easier.


Utter crap. This is the 'if you don't make a fuss, all the people who are prejudiced won't notice that you're one of them' argument, basically.

Original post by AdjectiveNoun
I think those individual identities such as "gay" "straight" and "bi" should be removed altogether. Your personal identity should be kept separate from both your current relationship status and those labels.


Again, it's great that someone who isn't bisexual is here to tell us what to do...
Original post by Hybris
My perspective on Bisexuality is that it is limited. How? Because it only looks at the stereotypical image of a man and a woman,


.. or you could see bisexuality as meaning "attracted to some people who have the same gender as I do and some people who don't".

The bi community has always had a large proportion of trans and 'non-binary gender' people in it, and it would be silly to say bisexuality is limited to two genders.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you