Straight, Bi, Gay/Lesbian: THE LABELS

[Mes Tarrant]

What do you think about them? Not long ago I read a short research book called The New Gay Teenager, and the author predicts that the next generation will eliminate labels altogether. Q: Are you gay? A: ... What? Q: Are you straight? A: I'm not sure what you mean. I am who I am. That kind of thing. What do you think about this? I'm not one of those people who is obsessed with getting rid of labels (labels are bad labels are evil ohhh fear teh labelz!!! ). I think they're important communication tools, because otherwise no one would understand what the heck you're trying to say. But the more I think about getting rid of these specific labels, the more I like the idea. What about the Kinsey scale (or the modernized version of it.. the name escapes me)? That was so revolutionary back in the day, but it's just another label, isn't it? I am who I am, I really really like men, but don't call me straight. That kind of mentality. Thoughts?

[ClouD]

Sexuality for me is a constant flux, liking something one day, then not another day. Personally, I don't like the idea of being defined by something I'm whimsically attracted to putting my genitals into at a particular moment. Labels for sexuality are so solid, and there's really no need for them in today's society. If someone asks me if I'm straight or gay or whatever, I often reply that it's enough trying to be true to myself than to be worried about what they want to call me for the benefit of their knowledge at the sake of my sexual freedom. It seems to be only necessary to use sexuality labels when a person is against or for a certain sexuality, as opposed to just being whatever.

[Carôusoul]

Labelling never makes clear definitions. But it is neccesary in languasge for functionality. It often doesn't have so much actual grounding in reality. But its required.

[ClouD]

But its required. Yes, but specifically labels for sexuality?

[Sandform]

Pfft. Removing labels is pointless and only serves to confuse people. I hate the bisexual fruitcakes who say they want to remove labels. Just because they don't like the fact that people don't understand them. Or the straight people who want to be politically correct. Or the gay losers who don't like the stigma attributed to gay. At the end of the day knowing the level of attraction other people have to specific genders is important and necessary to know not only the odds of a relationship forming, but how well that relationship will be once it is formed. These labels are just for what kind of sexual relationship you desire, so the point is mute about "I don't want to be labeled." If you at the moment believe that you are going to want to be with people of the same sex for the rest of your life then you are gay. If the opposite sex, then you are straight. If you find both options equally pleasing then you are bi. For further clarification if you are Bi you could say I like both sexes but right now I'm more interested in this sex than that sex. Why concede that labels like gay, straight, or bi are bad anyway? I find them innocuous.

[Carôusoul]

Yes, but specifically labels for sexuality? They are required in one form or another. And if they were somehow abolished they would arise again. Its what people do. They can't just watch a flowing world. They need it cut up. Into blocks.

[ClouD]

If you at the moment believe that you are going to want to be with people of the same sex for the rest of your life then you are gay. If the opposite sex, then you are straight. If you find both options equally pleasing then you are bi. For further clarification if you are Bi you could say I like both sexes but right now I'm more interested in this sex than that sex. The thing is that sexuality ISN'T CONSTANT. You have no knowledge of what you will be attracted to even 5 minutes from now. Labels have no point for something that exists only right now, preference exists now for something. It can exist now as an attraction for something in the future, but it exists now. When you're hungry, you're hungry for food now, not tomorrow. There's no point in me calling you a fruitcake-ual because you right now feel like eating fruitcake. Any given second, you might not be wanting fruitcake any more.

[Sandform]

The thing is that sexuality ISN'T CONSTANT. You have no knowledge of what you will be attracted to even 5 minutes from now. Labels have no point for something that exists only right now, preference exists now for something. It can exist now as an attraction for something in the future, but it exists now. When you're hungry, you're hungry for food now, not tomorrow. There's no point in me calling you a fruitcake-ual because you right now feel like eating fruitcake. Any given second, you might not be wanting fruitcake any more. Who said you can't change your label? It is only for bisexuals like yourself that it is an issue, that is why society created the word bisexual. The point of gay, straight, and bisexual isn't so you have to fit into only those types of relationships, it is so that people know what kinds of things you prefer. Without it how could anyone know if they had a reason to ask someone on a date? Go ahead and skip this part of my post. "These labels are just for what kind of sexual relationship you desire, so the point is mute about "I don't want to be labeled." " In other words, it isn't like you can't change your label to suit your needs. But for people like you who change constantly we give you the label bisexual, which leaves it open ended. Not everyone is in "constant flux." Bisexual leaves it open ended so that you can explain what you prefer at the moment.

[ClouD]

Who said you can't change your label? It is only for bisexuals like yourself that it is an issue, that is why society created the word bisexual. The point of gay, straight, and bisexual isn't so you have to fit into those types of relationships, it is so that people know what kinds of things you prefer. Without it how could anyone know if they had a reason to ask someone on a date? The point is, there's no reason in having the sexuality labels. Just because someone likes fruitcake, shouldn't mean enough to constitute a label. There's not just vaginas and penises, there's individual people. No doubt you don't like people that you don't like for whatever reason. Maybe we should start wearing shirts saying "I don't like people named Fred", but then what about all those Freds out there that I might like. It's restrictive in it's idea, since there's infinite variety. The connotations cause great prejudice. It's like Atheist, Agnostic, Theist. It's all really bullshit so people don't have to think for themselves.

[Sandform]

The point is, there's no reason in having the sexuality labels. Just because someone likes fruitcake, shouldn't mean enough to constitute a label. There's not just vaginas and penises, there's individual people. No doubt you don't like people that you don't like for whatever reason. Maybe we should start wearing shirts saying "I don't like people named Fred", but then what about all those Freds out there that I might like. It's restrictive in it's idea, since there's infinite variety. There is not infinite variety. There are only two gender types. Excluding of course hermaphrodites. Prejudice is the problem of the people who are prejudiced, not the people they are prejudiced against. Should we blame rape victims for being attractive? No, you blame the people who do the harm, not the people being harmed.

[ClouD]

One dick looks different to the next. I've heard you say yourself you specifically don't like twisty dicks, so that increases the variety already. It's both of their problem, one person is persecuted without reason against them specifically.

[Sandform]

One dick looks different to the next. I've heard you say yourself you specifically don't like twisty dicks, so that increases the variety already. It's both of their problem, one person is persecuted without reason against them specifically. I haven't ever seen a penis that didn't look like a penis, or a vagina that didn't look like a vagina. I wasn't using problem in the sense you are using it, you semantic guzzler. I was using problem in the way that it means that the only person who needs to change is the person who has issue with it.

[ClouD]

I haven't ever seen a penis that didn't look like a penis, or a vagina that didn't look like a vagina. I wasn't using problem in the sense you are using it, you semantic guzzler. I was using problem in the way that it means that the only person who needs to change is the person who has issue with it. So you'd like people to label you as gay? The connotations that go along with that are heavy, and the prejudice ideas directed at 'gays' are not only the responsibility of the people being prejudice to change, but also the people receiving the prejudice not to sit idly. Gay is the idea of sexual preference of the same gender, over the opposite gender. Is it that necessary? Straight, gay and bi are terms that do more harm than good. The ONLY reason that people would need to define something is so that they can understand it so that they can be for or against - there is no idea that is not for or against.

[Sandform]

So you'd like people to label you as gay? The connotations that go along with that are heavy, and the prejudice ideas directed at 'gays' are not only the responsibility of the people being prejudice to change, but also the people receiving the prejudice not to sit idly. Gay is the idea of sexual preference of the same gender, over the opposite gender. Is it that necessary? Straight, gay and bi are terms that do more harm than good. The ONLY reason that people would need to define something is so that they can understand it so that they can be for or against - there is no idea that is not for or against. No, the reason you say whether you are gay, straight, or Bi, is so that other people who might want to have a relationship know whether or not they should pursue that relationship. When someone has a problem with who I am, I as a gay person, I shouldn't have to say "Oh, don't call me that, some people don't like Gay people!" No, I should say that is your problem not mine. If you have a problem with me being gay, I don't care. I am who I am, and if you have a problem with me being gay I'm not going to make concessions FOR YOU.

[Xei]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this is about. There will always be people of different sexual preferences, and there will always be adjectives to describe these preferences. This whole 'get rid of labels' thing is nonsense, the human race is not a homogeneous blob.

[Original Poster]

Even though I could never have sex with a dude, it was quite liberating for me to drop the "straight" label and just be myself. I'm neither straight nor gay nor not straight nor not gay. Feels better, honest. It's not so much about getting rid of a tool to categorize the world, it's about losing attachment to the categories. It's about freeing yourself from definition and letting yourself naturally exist moment to moment.

[ClouD]

No, the reason you say whether you are gay, straight, or Bi, is so that other people who might want to have a relationship know whether or not they should pursue that relationship. When someone has a problem with who I am, I as a gay person, I shouldn't have to say "Oh, don't call me that, some people don't like Gay people!" No, should say that is your problem not mine. If you have a problem with me being gay, I don't care. I am who I am, and if you have a problem with me being gay I'm not going to make concessions FOR YOU. Just because two people share a common interest in where they might want to put their genitals, doesn't mean they should or should not enter a relationship. It's restriction of freedom that the labels cause. If someone says they're gay, and someone says they're straight, that's stupid that it would mean they can't have a relationship that they might enjoy otherwise as human beings instead of as gays, straights or bisexuals. Also what if the person is not sure about whether they are gay, straight, or bisexual, or just simply thinks as I do - that the labels are more damaging than otherwise? Should they make concessions FOR YOU, so that you can know if you "want to pursue that relationship"? It boils down to that THE LABELS AREN'T NECESSARY, and if looked at, they are more restricting because of the idiots with prejudice than helpful in directing towards choices of relationship - which would be based on the prejudice ideas of sexuality instead of the attraction to the other person anyway.

[Sandform]

Just because two people share a common interest in where they might want to put their genitals, doesn't mean they should or should not enter a relationship. It's restriction of freedom that the labels cause. If someone says they're gay, and someone says they're straight, that's stupid that it would mean they can't have a relationship that they might enjoy otherwise as human beings instead of as gays, straights or bisexuals. Also what if the person is not sure about whether they are gay, straight, or bisexual, or just simply thinks as I do - that the labels are more damaging than otherwise? Should they make concessions FOR YOU, so that you can know if you "want to pursue that relationship"? It boils down to that THE LABELS AREN'T NECESSARY, and if looked at, they are more restricting because of the idiots with prejudice than helpful in directing towards choices of relationship - which would be based on the prejudice ideas of sexuality instead of the attraction to the other person anyway. Your very first statement is wrong. If one person likes females, and the other is a male, it obviously means that they should not enter into a sexual relationship. That is all the words gay straight or bi are for. "They can't have relationships that they might enjoy." The point is that they wouldn't have an enjoyable sexual relationship. If they want to have a relationship it means that the type of relationship they are going to have success at would most likely be a friendship. I think you fail to understand the way labels work. You aren't handed a label and told that you have to be whatever that label says you are. You are something, and then based on that something you fit into a label. Only a fool would think that a label defines who a person is rather than who a person is defining which label accurately describes them. Not everyone is a confused person who "is not sure about whether they are gay, straight, or bisexual." It really isn't hard to understand. Not everyone is like you ClouD. Not everyone finds women attractive or men attractive at different times. I don't see why telling people that you fall into a category is somehow "damaging." Gay - Finds same sex attractive. Straight - Finds opposite sex attractive. Bi - Finds both male or females attractive. OMG it is so damaging to tell people what kind of relationship you're open to! It is soooo damaging to say, hey guys, as it turns out, every person of that gender that I've looked at I'm not that into, but I am into this other gender. Or, hey guys, as it turns out, I happen to like both genders either at the same time or at different times. Darn those definitions for things which explain concepts! I'm tired of being called human, even though by definition I am a human...I'm just me! Oh wait, I'm tired of being called me, me is such a damaging label, that means from now on I don't exist.

[ClouD]

Tired, may reply later.

[Original Poster]

You're like a magic 8 ball

[O'nus]

These labels are not arbitrary and most psychologists will agree that there is a dynamic for sexuality. Sexuality is a diverse and profound field which only reflects the common profound and diverse nature of the human mind. I really tired of the "can not label" mentality. The fact is, language and categories can always be used in utility and reference - not representation. Only the fool will truly think in linguistic representation and you ought not to let those people bother you. Where you change and adapt throughout your life, so does your sexuality and everything else about you. However, there are always linguistic terms to reference to what you are experiencing because, believe it or not, most of what you experience has been experienced by others. I know the spiritualist and the subjectivists alike will squeal at that remark but this is just my point -there will be nothing to argue with for a subjectivist. "You cannot label X. You cannot speak of Y" leads nowhere. You might as well devolve human language and development in this respect. This is a great obstacle for the scientific endeavor because humans are always too inclined to fabricate their uniqueness. Sexuality Kinsey was a great psychologist for the development of the psychology of sexuality. While there were questionable things about his results, his continuum is accepted to this day: As you can see, most people can locate themselves (at that time) at a specific point in this continuum which allows for almost every sexual preference. The only sexual preference not really accounted for here is the sexuality towards non-human things. The point here is that you can change easily over time and think differently over time but most people's sexuality will gravitate towards a certain spectrum. I personally would find myself at "1" but this also does not mean I have a hatred or adversity towards homosexuality or homosexuals - I am simply not generally attracted towards those of my sexuality. An important thing to note is that most people will generally label themselves in this way. There's many reason for this but it is generally a sense of avoiding personal confusion. Most people don't want to think on a continuum and would rather keep things black and white to help themselves understand themselves. Transgendered people have a severe habbit of doing this for obvious reasons. The point is that labeling actually helps a lot more than not labeling. + Percent Reporting They Are Heterosexual by Gender and Age Cohorts (F=Female, M=Male) In this graph, 2,844 respondents to an Ethnic and Religious Attitudes survey, 65% of the Under-25 females reported they are heterosexual, compared to 85.5% of the 25-34 age group, 84.7% of the 35-49 age group, and 91.2% of the 50+ age group. The substantial decline of heterosexuality among the Under-25 females is not matched by the Under-25 males, who report heterosexuality at a rate of 86.4%. The rest of the male age cohorts are remarkably constant, as the 25-34 cohort reported 88.8%, the 35-49 cohort reporting 89.9%, and the 50+ cohort reported 88.5%. Do you not see the significant polarization of "labeling" of your sexuality? We could break this down more, but the point is that a significant amount of people adapt the polarized sexuality labels anyway. Subjectivity and Labeling Furthermore, how practical would it be for everyday life to explain who you are if you do not believe in the pragmatic value of language? Seriously, I am beginning to consider attacking subjectivists because it's all too often people who are obviously attacked often but do not take into the count of many people who understand dynamics but still must used language to understand the world around them. Subjectivity has very little practical value outside of your own mind - hence the very reason it's subjectivity and not objectivity. Why has "labeling" been stigmatized? Why is it a pejorative term now? I hear too often people just say, "Ohh, he labels people and objectifies.. yeah, he's like that" but then there's no followed reasoning or justification for why this is apparently wrong? Subjectivity is a big bag of fail. Not to say that objectivity is the be all end all, because I know people will think that of me before reading my complete post. My point is that all things need to be taken into account - interactionism is truly the best and all encompassing solution. I seriously do not understand why people do this and yet also often consider themselves "non-dualistic" by isolating their mentality to one side or the other. What do you think...? Edit: Notice how many people of religious faith commit to these labeling? I think it is the people of religion that believe sexuality is a curable "illness" that cause sensitivity about the subject. Furthermore, I think it is the natural dynamic of human sexuality that causes people to believe that it truly can be changed! Consider that, in any religion, there will be people who vary in the dynamic and those people will be biased to think that "I have felt that way.. and I resisted!" however, as we see above, there is a dynamic. Thus, there is a lot of variables to take into consideration. What's my point here? Well, I personally point the finger at religion for a lot reasons and I am personally and explicitly stating that religion is the most opposing force to any sexuality besides heterosexuality. Any religious person willing to dispute this ought not to be of a mainstream religion because it is abundantly clear, even from the above survey, that those of religious faith have an issue understanding and being sympathetic to the sexual diverse. But it does not matter how much evidence is provided, right? Because "God" said so... or for some other subjectively defined reason that can never be argued.. Thus only reinforcing my point. ~

[DuB]

Why has "labeling" been stigmatized? Why is it a pejorative term now? I hear too often people just say, "Ohh, he labels people and objectifies.. yeah, he's like that" but then there's no followed reasoning or justification for why this is apparently wrong? Subjectivity is a big bag of fail. This is pretty much what I was going to add. I don't have much to say about whether or not we "should" have labels for sexuality, but the simple process of categorizing, judging, and labeling the world is one of the most fundamental features of human cognition. It seems to me that it's gotten a bad rap due to the Bible ("judge not lest ye be judged" and all that), but it's really a pretty silly thing to deny - we literally have no conscious control over it. It's actually quite an adaptive habit when you think about it.

[Licity]

It seems to me that it's gotten a bad rap due to the Bible ("judge not lest ye be judged" and all that)\ Funny how the people most often seen as being prejudiced are the ones that shouldn't judge at all... What is a "label" anyway? Is it just a word? Is it a stereotype? Is it the world associated with a stereotype? Or is it something else entirely?

[Mes Tarrant]

I agree with everyone who said that labels are necessary at least as communication tools. I'm still not entirely convinced that these specific labels are that important, though. If we completely erased terms such as bi, straight, gay, etc, it would probably cause a lot of confusion when two people meet BUT... Who knows, maybe it would be very liberating... Maybe everyone would have the chance to just relax... I don't know. I guess something like the Kinsey scale is fair and much much better than such limiting terms like "gay" and "straight." What if I'm ridiculously, insanely, attracted to men (which I personally am), but at one point a girl kind of comes along and I suddenly and inexplicably want to be with HER, then what does that make me? Certainly not gay. Certainly not bi. But it wouldn't really be accurate to say that I'm straight, either, would it. I don't know, I'm speaking from personal experience here. I guess the best thing I can do is put myself at a 1 on the Kinsey scale. But it would be even better, for someone like me, if these terms didn't exist in our language.

[Xaqaria]

I think the only way they will ever be erased from our language is if they truly stop applying, and they haven't yet. Maybe words like straight, gay, bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual don't apply to you but they still have applications for other people. I don't think using these words necessarily means that someone is incapable of recognizing that there are people who don't fit any one category. No set of labels is capable of being applicable all of the time, but that doesn't mean the whole set should be thrown out completely. If anything, it just means we need to add to the set to make it more accurate. Also, the word that would be used to describe you in the situation presented in your last post would be bi-curious.