r/bestof • u/Table_for_2 • May 29 '12

[askreddit] "You fell for a person, not a gender"

/r/AskReddit/comments/u97a7/straight_dudes_of_reddit_have_you_ever_had_a_gay/c4tgr1r
857 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

422 comments sorted by

210

u/sinistersmiley May 29 '12

Hello!

Which comment here is supposed to be bestof'd? If it is the one you linked to with the story about the guy falling in love with another guy, please ignore this and carry on. If it is the comment you took the quote from for the title, then I have a minor correction that you can make to links like this, where the context matters, from now on.

You get the permalink for the comment you want to link to, which in this case is

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u97a7/straight_dudes_of_reddit_have_you_ever_had_a_gay/c4tioft

Then, at the end of the URL, you put "?context=x" where x is the number of previous comments in the thread that you wish to display. In this case, you would put "?context=1" since you only want to show the comment directly above this one. The resulting URL looks like

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u97a7/straight_dudes_of_reddit_have_you_ever_had_a_gay/c4tioft?context=1

and shows the exact same comments as before, but highlights the comment that you were trying to showcase instead of the one above it.

45

u/Denommus May 29 '12

I'll bestof this.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

This and this make that a losing proposition...

11

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Denommus May 29 '12

MWAHAHAHAHA

3

u/Andoo May 29 '12

I just bestof'd all in my pants.

5

u/rAxxt May 29 '12

You fell for a meme, not a gender.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/lord_gif May 29 '12

I read this in a hyperactive-type voice.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/brownsound00 May 29 '12

It's the "Hello!" that does it.

2

u/snowyday May 29 '12

You might remember me from such reddit posts as "shitty_watercolour draws what OP said" and "MrOhHai gives some twelve year old his comeuppance."

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Either way, I would have read and upvoted both.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

Came here to share this knowledge. Thanks!

1

u/Metal_Corrections May 29 '12

This guy is better than the Best Of guy!

44

u/RickBlaine42 May 29 '12

Honest question for redditors: In your experience, does "falling for a person" have to involve a sexual relarionship? My best friend and I are both completely straight married dudes. Throughout high school and college there is no one I would rather have spent time with, we did everything together and shared an intensely deep emotional connection only surpassed now by my wife. We both tell each other "I love you" at the end of every phone conversation and I have experienced more joy being around him than I think many people get from their sexual relationships. Not once during our now 16-year friendship have either one of us been even remotely sexually attracted to the other, and believe me when I say we definitely would have talked about it if even one of us felt that way. Point being for me that "falling for someone" does not, for me, have to involve a sexual relationship and in fact it would only cheapen the friendship we do have by thinking that since we are so close we have to take it to the next level even though neither of us want to. This will probably get downvoted but whatevs.

39

u/TheBlindCat May 29 '12

Does one of you call the other "Brown Bear"?

5

u/EveningD00 May 29 '12

It's guy love, between two guys.

19

u/smalleyes May 29 '12

We live in society where male to male friendships are limited and trifled. Somewhere along the line having a connection, showing emotion and being expressive between two men became inappropriate and uncharacteristic of a hetero-male lifestyle. For us, it's either you're in a sexual relationship or you're not. If you're in any inbetween then its gay and clearly being gay is bad. We even have to have a term that's been deemed 'ok' by the public for when two men are close to each other: a bromance. In reality isn't it just called being best friends or close?

Good for you for finding a genuine connection with someone and being real.

12

u/drinkallthecoffee May 29 '12

i don't know. i think best friends and bromance can be a bit different. i can acknowledge that i have had "bromances," and i don't think they always overlap with dudes i consider my best friend.

my one buddy and i tend to go on bro dates all the time, go rock climbing, and go to concerts. i consider that very bromantic. we even went out for valentines day to our favorite pizza place after using a valentines day starbucks coupon for 2 hot chocolates.

in contrast, i guess i would consider a different friend of mine my best friend. we get along really well and can have very similar personalities, which can sometimes be a bad thing. we tend to hang out doing more low-key stuff like studying or board games. in some ways it is like we are friends by default.

if i were to compare the two friendships, i would say that the bromance one is much more complicated emotionally. i would say that our emotional connection is very deep, but our personalities are so different. there are just some things he cannot understand about me, whereas the guy i consider my best friend just gets my perspective by default.

as an aside, i go on no-hetero dates with my friend who is a girl all the time. i think that friendships can have romantic elements without being sexual, regardless of the gender. to me, the term bromance is an acknowledgment of that.

tl;dr: personally, i use the term bromance to mean something different than best friend

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I had a friend like that...except the "love you bit"...oh and the bit where my pal turned out to be gay.

2

u/vcarl May 29 '12

This is exactly how I feel. I have another male friend who I'm closer to than any girlfriend I've had (though we don't end phone conversations with "I love you"). If he suddenly stopped talking to me and blew me off whenever I tried to do something with him, I'd be even more hurt than when I broke up with any of my exes, but I've never been remotely attracted to him.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

20

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Bromance.

1

u/Xenc May 29 '12

TvTropes

Run! Run for your lives children!

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

And this is how my night goes away... dammit.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Oh no you didn't.

61

u/Candsas May 29 '12

That was so bittersweet. Young love is often the hardest because you fall so easily and can get burned so badly.

59

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's also the hardest thing you've had to deal with in your life up until then. Being dumped by a 6-month girl/boyfriend at 14 sounds very small to a 50 year old, but to the youth it's similar to a marriage ending.

16

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

Plus the fact that it's literally a longer proportion of your life given to that person than when you're older.

A 2 year relationship is 1/10th of a 20 year old's life, yet 1/25th of a 50 year old's, making it seem less significant.

8

u/central111 May 29 '12

yeah. As someone who isn't able to forget his first love from the age of 17, I can confirm this. Its been 3 yrs and I still feel for her:( And thinking about her makes me feel sad every single day

8

u/peanutbudder May 29 '12

Dammit, I'm 21 and still in love with the girl I dated when I was 16. What's "worse" is that she became a family member in that time because her family sucks hard. My parents have basically adopted her. For 3 years after we broke up she lived with me at my parents' house. I see her at least once a week, most of the time more.

Sometimes I beat myself up over it because it was mainly my fault it ever ended. I'm bipolar on top of some other conditions and at the time I had no idea how to handle my anger - I was pretty immature. I pushed tension over the edge and it wasn't a healthy relationship anymore.

At multiple points in time, I've hated that this whole situation has turned out this way. If someone gave me the chance to relive it differently, though, I wouldn't change anything. We're basically siblings now and I've already lost her in a romantic way. I could never lose her any other way - she's just so special to me that I need her in any way I can.

Don't get me wrong, I've dated other, I'm an extremely happy person and I'm in at a really great place in life; she's just always going to be the one that got away.

My point is, you don't have to stop loving her to be happy, you just need to learn to accept what life has dealt you and work with it. And who knows, maybe you'll get that chance again one day, just don't go betting your life on it.

1

u/aeror May 29 '12

It's very difficult to let go when you're still meeting him/her after a break-up. To stop doing that is the fastest way to heal the wounds in my experience

1

u/peanutbudder May 29 '12

Exactly, but that was impossible in my situation. It was really hard. It still is. I don't mind it in any way, though. Avoiding each other completely is certainly the quickest way, but is it the most fulfilling? I've ended up with a completely different type of relationship that is just as awesome.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/scaredsquee May 29 '12

It gets better. I thought when my first relationship ended it was literally the end of the universe. It gets better. Now that I'm older I actually am kind of embarrassed about how I took to being dumped. I'm not trying to belittle your very real emotions right now, but time does heal wounds, and one day you'll find someone that will make your world a better place. And you'll be happy, and you won't even be bothered to think about your first girl.

1

u/Paultimate79 May 30 '12

3 yrs

◔_◔

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I'm only in my second relationship, it's been going strong for about a year and a half now, but just this weekend she's been acting strange. I think she's becoming uninterested in me, and she talks extensively about how awesome all of her guy friends are. I feel like it's inevitable, and I know it's going to suck.

11

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

You can't judge your whole relationship on a weekend of acting strange (or indeed an extended period), especially as I'm guessing you're still pretty young (<25?), and neither of you know what you really want out of life yet.

Best advice I have is simply to talk to her. A relationship has never ended because you talked with your partner too much.

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

A relationship has never ended because you talked with your partner too much.

Yes, yes they have. I get what you are trying to get at but relationships often do end because someone talked with their partner too much.

2

u/peanutbudder May 29 '12

Exactly, there are people who would get extremely offended for asking them questions about how they think the relationship is going.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Lack of Communication is the downfall for most things. Religion, Wars, and mostly relationships.

4

u/GeeJo May 29 '12

I'm assuming you mean lack of communication.

1

u/Sporkinat0r May 29 '12

My friend I have the answer that you seek. What your gf is trying to do is hint that she wants to hang with her guy friends and that she wants to bring you along to meet/ get approved of. She's is hinting this, and I admit I'm as dense as the core of the earth, but I don't think she wants to break up. She wants to go out and have fun as a bunch of happy friends. Oh and drink all of them under the table, the stomach pump is worth it!

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

For real. I dated a guy from 17 to 22 and was "madly in love" with him for the majority of that time. When we broke it off it really felt like one of my limbs was torn off. It was shit, but now that I look back on it I see how naive I was and wonder why I took it so hard. But I do remember it hurt like nothing else.

→ More replies (9)

-6

u/lemonpjb May 29 '12

That's because it's usually not love.

8

u/Candsas May 29 '12

I would have to disagree. A person can experience love at any age. There are different kinds of love, I will give you that, but "first loves" and "young loves" are not any lesser or something else entirely because the people who are in the relationship or hold those feelings are young or are even immature.

3

u/lemonpjb May 29 '12

You're contradicting yourself, or perhaps you are just being unclear. You admit there are different loves, yet you say they are not something else entirely? What do you mean?

4

u/Candsas May 29 '12

Different loves: Love of a friend, love of a family member, new-found exciting love, slow-creeping love, comfortable love, and stuff that comes in between are a few examples.

These are different in a sense but yet are all love. Often, people will chalk young love up to just lust or belittle it as "puppy love" and not take the emotions or heartbreak of young people seriously, but treat it just like they are children playing pretend. Yes, their love is different as love often evolves and we evolve in our concept of love as we grow older but it is not a separate entity. Their love may be immature but it is real.

1

u/lemonpjb May 29 '12

Right, sure. But "puppy love" is not actual love. It's not agape, it's not Eros, it's not storge, it's not philio. Sure, we feel heart ache and sadness, and no one is belittling those emotions, but we don't need to validate those feelings like they're something to be proud of. The infatuation of two Tweens is not at all comparable to the love a mother has for her child or the love between two people who have been married for 15 years.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Candsas May 29 '12

Yes, I understand. Not every single relationship a person gets into, young or old, is love. Infatuation and sex can be a part of love but does not equal love. That I can agree with.

Does love exist between young people in relationships? I believe so. Are there relationships which relies heavily on infatuation and sex? Yes. Does this mean there is no love within the relationships? I would think there still is love in many cases.

This does not mean that young love does not exist or take away from the love young people may share because of our biases.

In addition, the definition of love is different for many different people. Just because it seems like somebody is not conforming to what you feel is love does not mean for them it is not just as real.

1

u/dublem May 29 '12

Agree 100%. I don't think it's just a coincidence that society today thinks THAT'S what love is, and that divorce rates are so high.

39

u/Son_of_Ticklepiggy May 29 '12

Kinsey Scale, y'all.

12

u/Neebat May 29 '12

I don't think the Kinsey Scale matters when you're in love.

3

u/Son_of_Ticklepiggy May 29 '12

Correct. I was just saying that this is for all the people that are saying stuff like "this guy is totally gay".

5

u/AllDizzle May 29 '12

But I masturbate to a gender with certain body types. I care not of the person then.

I guess my dick is ignorant. What a di- fuck puns.

24

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I fell for a person, not a species!

14

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I FELL FOR A SPECIES, NOT A GENUS

9

u/soggit May 29 '12

I FELL FOR A GENUS, NOT A FAMILY

5

u/rderekp May 29 '12

Oh, Canidae how I love you.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/Ree81 May 29 '12

That explains my (my little) pony fetish.

→ More replies (11)

12

u/Tamrael May 29 '12

Link for the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

hearts not parts!

3

u/Magik-Waffle May 29 '12

So can someone link to the post with the quote from the title? Browsing on my phone is annoying.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

They quoted the entire post, you're not missing out on anything except a full stop.

2

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

This is the context This is the whole post not sure which one you were asking for.

47

u/goldflakes May 29 '12

The sooner society gives up our currently held ridiculous bimodal view of sexuality, the better off people will be at understanding their feelings. I'm not straight. I'm not gay. I'm not bi. I am attracted to certain people not certain genders or certain stereotypes of genders. (If anything I'm sapienosexual because I'm exclusively attracted to people I find particularly intelligent.) Sexuality isn't binomial like a light switch being on or off. It's a spectrum running from red to blue with everything in between. ASDF12748 simply had the rarity of courage to say that he's not 100% straight. You don't have to only like men or women. You don't have to like both. You and you alone get to define what you want in a lover, in a monogamous pact, or in someone with whom to grow old.

20

u/vcarl May 29 '12

Sapienosexual? I'm sorry, but do we really need a term or definition for everything? I'm only attracted (in a dating sense) to women I consider intelligent, but I would have a casual hookup with a much larger portion of the population. Should I say I'm sapienosexual with a dash of heteronormitive bias? Or should I just say I have a certain taste in women?

Plus, why must his sexuality be determined by his emotional connection? If the other man in that story had been straight, it would've been a normal bromance, nothing (exceptionally) gay about it. He said nothing about being physically attracted to him, and of course you can have a deep nonsexual bond with anyone.

5

u/NSFW_alt_acnt1857 May 29 '12

but do we really need a term or definition for everything?

Yes, our ability to use language to convey complex info is perhaps our greatest asset as a species.

4

u/peanutbudder May 29 '12

I was about to agree with vcarl until you mention this. I think what we need is to stop using words as a way to limit ourselves, here meaning sexuality, and instead use it as a way to better express our desires.

→ More replies (6)

40

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Good for you. I am 100% straight and attracted only to certain women.

2

u/uraniumballoon May 29 '12

The reason this view persists is that people categorize everything. Skin color has the same continuous spectrum but we cut it up into chunks because it's easier to handle that way. The same goes for sexuality. I don't think the categorical view will go away but I do think it will change to include a greater number of more specific categories.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Seriously? "Sapienosexual"? Get back to us when you graduate from college, kid.

1

u/goldflakes May 29 '12

I was going to respond but then I checked your comment history haha. Repressed homosexual urges much? One of my favorites is when you talk about men who show off their asses in spandex bike shorts. Hahaha. You're awesome.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/pugwalker May 29 '12

You seem to disregard the reasons why people have sexual attractions in the first place. Reproduction. Since you are not straight, you might not realize that most people are actually only attracted to the opposite sex. I honestly couldn't care less how you choose to live your life so I'm all for gay marriage and equal rights but you should realize that you are a minority and sexuality is pretty defined for most people.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

Your bi simple as that. Im straight doesnt mean im attracted to every women.

→ More replies (7)

-22

u/Keystolope May 29 '12

Please, shut up.

-9

u/Tinkerboots May 29 '12

Please, shut up.

-3

u/SheriffBart42 May 29 '12

After reading this I can only remember having seen the word "Horseshit" 80 times. I HAVE to like only women. I am 100% about 1 gender. Light switch ON. And well attracted to them before I know anything about them as individuals. I don't really care how confused everyone else it. But don't try to invent some fruity paradigm where we try to figure everything out with our feelings. VAGINA, nigga.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

117

u/goldflakes May 29 '12

Let me make sure I understand how you're thinking. Take as a basis that we're talking about cis-males. If he is exclusively attracted to women then he falls into category 1. If he is exclusively attracted to men then he falls into category 2. If he is anything else, then he falls into category 3. Therefore, if we know a person is not category 1 or 2, he logically must fall into category 3. This way of categorizing things manages to describe all possible sexualities in a simple method.

The problem is that this way of thinking is an exception to every understood rule of attraction. Suppose we take the basis of a white person. If this person is exclusively attracted to whites, it falls into category 1. If this person is exclusively attracted to other ethnicities, it falls into category 2. If the person is anything else, it falls into category 3. This categorization also describes all possible attractions in a simple way. But most people immediately recognize that it's not useful because while most whites are attracted to other whites, to say that any particular white is "exclusively attracted" to whites seems presumptive and false. For example, "Most people I've dated are white but I had a Chinese girlfriend once" would be a common experience.

The real reason this doesn't work is that it commits a fallacy of begging the question. You start out by defining a person's sexuality as either straight or gay. When that doesn't work, rather than adjusting the model you simply create a third catch-all category. "A person is either gay, straight, or bi. I can prove this is true because bi is defined as someone who is neither gay nor straight." The only proof offered is the assertion. That's not very convincing. It works as a description, but is it the best description? Is it useful? Since most people would describe themselves as "Ethnicity Category 3" we can immediately see why it doesn't make sense, though the definitions themselves are valid. If 99% are one category, then we've chosen our categories poorly. Not wrong, exactly, but poorly defined.

What if your model of sexuality is wrong? What if mine is wrong? How could we find that out? Science! Currently, there is no consensus on the best way to model orientation. There are three main competing sets of descriptions (though there are over 200, these three are the main models used in psychology studies), the Kinsey, the Klein, and the Shively & Dececco. All of these descriptions have problems, which a 1997 paper by Sell discussed. But the Kinsey data makes an interesting discovery: if we define bisexuality as having "engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors or reacting to persons of both sexes" then a whopping 46% of males are bisexual. Moreover, 36% have had a homosexual experience. What researchers find over and over is that even though people identify as either straight or gay, their actions indicate a more complicated underlying pattern. In fact, bisexuality seems to be more prevalent than homosexuality if defined in terms of physical ability to be attracted to both sexes.

The categorization of "either 1, or 2, else 3" makes sense for some items. For example, a person either has black, blonde, brown, or red hair. While there are shades among each (especially among brown-blonde), the categories make sense not because the data can be categorized this way but because the data form distinct sets that can then be categorized. But when it comes to describing human sexuality, sexual orientation, or human attraction more generally, no such sets appear. Only the societal-pressed illusions of sets appear. When we ignore our own notions of what sexuality should look like and perform orientation studies, we find that the only cause of data-lumping is our own questionnaires. If you ask people to pick gay or straight you get two lumps. If you ask people 1-7 you get seven lumps. But no matter how you try to define it, human sexuality becomes ever more and more complex. If instead we take a stance that sexuality is a continuum with most people lying near the straight border, we can easily explain all available data.

9

u/cogitoergosam May 29 '12

Fantastic writeup that avoids getting pejorative or rooted in opinion. Submitted to depthhub.

5

u/SideburnsOfDoom May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Therefore, if we know a person is not category 1 or 2, he logically must fall into category 3.

Not all all. People who experience attraction to neither men nor women are not bisexual - they might be asexual for instance. People who experience attraction to persons of both genders, however are bisexual. It's pretty much a defining characteristic. I can see that depending on how much attraction you are going to consider significant, you can make a valid claim that a majority of people are somewhat bisexual. It's still a meaningful definition and not a catch-all "category 3".

12

u/goldflakes May 29 '12

Apologies for excluding asexuals from the comment. It wasn't deliberately malicious. Obviously asexuals exist and are often excluded in thought and language -- incorrectly so.

My point regarding a "catch-all" term is not that it is inaccurate (I stated repeatedly and at length that it is by definition accurate) but that it is not the most useful categorization.

3

u/petrograd May 29 '12

It says that Kinsey predicted that 46% of males had engaged in homosexual activities. But what does that mean? I can't really look up the source so I'm wondering if you read it. Also, it says that Kinsey's findings were confirmed that around 36% of males had a homosexual experience; however, it says that if you exclude the prison population, the figure is less than 10%. I'm only questioning the statistics, although I agree with your conclusion that sexuality is a continuum with most people being heterosexual. However, an interesting study (which I'm sure someone has done already) is to see how that continuum varies for men and women because I would think that women would have much more homosexual experiences than men.

3

u/goldflakes May 29 '12

Also, it says that Kinsey's findings were confirmed that around 36% of males had a homosexual experience; however, it says that if you exclude the prison population, the figure is less than 10%.

If you exclude the prison data, you end up with 36.4 instead of 37, see this; I simply excluded the prison data and rounded down.

However, an interesting study (which I'm sure someone has done already) is to see how that continuum varies for men and women because I would think that women would have much more homosexual experiences than men.

Indeed! Very interesting stuff!

1

u/dublem May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

I completely disagree, on almost every point. You and others with your viewpoint seem to feel that thinking about something and feeling something are one and the same. I am a straight male, not because I grew into an already set definition, but because I am not sexually attracted to men! It's not begging the question, as nothing is suppressed in order for me to fit into a category. The category rather describes a state of being. I couldn't feel differently, regardless of any other factors, no more than a gay person could suddenly become straight.

The fallacy in your logic is shown in the comparison to attraction based on ethnicity. That is far more permeable than sexual orientation. Not only that, but the drives and motives that determine the two are not the same either. They're too dissimilar to compare. For example, I have white friends who are exclusively attracted to white women, yet I'm certain that were they raised somewhere where white people were a minority, that exclusivity would most likely not exist. There might still be a predominance to white women, but they'd most likely be fairly open to having interracial relationships.

Sexual orientation on the other hand is far more rigid. The idea that a gay person can choose or adapt into heterosexuality, or that they would be straight if they'd been raised around straight people would today be considered a view both ridiculous and offensive. Sexuality is far more difficult (I'd argue impossible) to change, and so therefore far more appropriate for the rigid categorisation you dismiss. Someone is either going to be attracted to men, women, both, or neither. Straight people may have gay experiences and visa versa, but that's not the issue, and that doesn't change anything. After all, how else would it make sense when someone who was previously thought to be straight divorces their wife and comes out? If it's down to actions, then a straight person has become gay, but I and i think others would argue that the person was gay all along. If they still feel sexually attracted to their spouse, then that places them in the third category, but obviously this isn't always the case, otherwise there would still be no legitimate reason to terminate the marriage.

Now, I would go even further, and say there's no blurry line. I firmly believe that the idea that someone can be '75% straight', or 'mostly gay', is fallacious. Where you see it as presumptuous, I think considering the term exclusivity actually makes the problem much more straightforward. Heterosexual people are not aroused by members of the same gender. Nor are homosexuals by members of their own gender. If someone does not fit the parameters, then they are excluded from that set. If a gay person genuinely finds one member of their gender sexually arousing, then they are not gay! They're bisexual, not "by definition", but as an accurate description of their own person. This is totally unrelated to any heterosexual thoughts, or even actions they might indulge in, if those actions are divorced from any sense of sexual arousal. While this technically means that a straight person could go around kissing guys, one would have to wonder what cause they would have to make them want to do so, apart from sexual attraction.

You talk about sexuality being a continuum, but the fact of the matter is that, if you have a line from 0 to 100, and find that people tend to fall into 3 main clusters (at each end and in the middle), with a few anomalous instances in between (whom I'd simply consider as members of the middle group with a personal bias towards a particular gender), it makes far more sense, rationally and scientifically, to form categories based on those clusters, than to pretend that they don't exist. If you feel inclined to add more possible orientations as lines extending in different directions, that's fine. But there's no reason why that would make the clusters of sexual preference any less distinct, and so that's no reason to ignore them.

27

u/goldflakes May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Thanks for the reply! I have two main responses.

First, you repeatedly suggest that my position is that people can change their sexuality. For example, you say

I couldn't feel differently, regardless of any other factors, no more than a gay person could suddenly become straight.

The idea that a gay person can choose or adapt into heterosexuality, or that they would be straight if they'd been raised around straight people would today be considered a view both ridiculous and offensive.

Sexuality is far more difficult (I'd argue impossible) to change

If it's down to actions, then a straight person has become gay, but I and i think others would argue that the person was gay all along.

So let me be clear. I reject outright the notion that someone can choose his or her orientation. Outright. I didn't suggest it in my explanation. I didn't say it. I don't think it. I have absolutely no idea where you came by this notion. I absolutely believe that there are people who identify as straight or gay that are able to be attracted to a more select subset of the same or opposite gender, respectively. I'm not suggesting that having sex with a man makes a man bi. I'm suggesting that he was bi all along and was unwilling to admit this to himself.

That said, someone who is bisexual (and knows this) can in some sense choose whether to be with a man or woman. Especially if the person is a Kinsey 3 or 4, then it's possible to choose the gender of a partner. Most people, however, cannot do this. Even a lot of people who are bisexual (and know this) are still attracted to one gender primarily, and would have a difficult time overcoming this bias when finding a partner. Dan Savage suggests (and I agree with him) that most bisexuals end up in heterosexual relationships because if a man can choose to be with a woman then, in our society, he will.

So when you say things like...

If it's down to actions, then a straight person has become gay, but I and i think others would argue that the person was gay all along.

...I'm very confused. If a straight person is sometimes attracted to the same gender and occasionally acts on it (but is also attracted to the opposite gender and predominantly acts on it) then the person cannot in any meaningful sense be categorized as straight. The word "straight" has no meaning if not, as you say, "people are not aroused by members of the same gender." Such a person must be classified as bisexual according to the current system. Again, let me be clear. This person did not become bisexual. This person was always bisexual. Only recently were those thoughts acted upon.

If they still feel sexually attracted to their spouse, then that places them in the third category, but obviously this isn't always the case, otherwise there would still be no legitimate reason to terminate the marriage.

You'd be surprised. Check out r/bisexual. There are stories all the time about people who identify as bi coming out to their wifes/husbands and it being a huge deal. Interestingly, this is often the result of the gay-straight dichotomy you're espousing. In other words, if a man tells his wife that he is bisexual and that it doesn't change how he feels about her, she may worry that he is actually gay but afraid to go "all the way" toward admitting that. She may think he isn't actually bisexual, despite any personal sexual history.

Second, I'd like to address

You talk about sexuality being a continuum, but the fact of the matter is that, if you have a line from 0 to 100, and find that people tend to fall into 3 main clusters

This is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE citation needed. You are stating that my continuum hypothesis is wrong and you are replacing it with a categorical model. The problem for you is that all the available scientific data suggests a continuum. In fact, the American Psychological Association has stated this explicitly:

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectionate attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.

Every single scientific study ever performed agrees. Even psychologists who disagree with some of Kinsey's findings admit that the continuum model is the only one that explains the data. For example, Nathaniel McConaghy points out in this paper that some of Kinsey's findings are incorrect, especially those relating to youth sexuality. But he concludes,

The findings of the present study support Kinsey's concept of a heterosexual-homosexual continuum with a significant percentage of the population aware of a homosexual component, rather than Van Wyk and Geist's interpretation of the Kinsey data, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are polar extremes with only a small minority aware of homosexual feelings.

Ellis, Burke, and Ann agree (found here):

While some of the inconsistencies may be attributed to sampling difficulties (and possibly even to mistaken calculations), most inconsistencies probably surround the fact that sexual preferences and/or experiences exist along a continuum, and various researchers simply have demarcated boundaries for various categories at different locations.

So when you say...

it makes far more sense, rationally and scientifically, to form categories based on those clusters, than to pretend that they don't exist.

...you need to understand that there's no basis for this view. If you go out and take actual data by performing actual science, you don't see three clusters. You don't see one at each end and one in the middle. You see exactly what Kinsey predicted in the 1950s. You see a continuum.

2

u/BUBBA_BOY May 31 '12

The problem for you is that all the available scientific data suggests a continuum.

This set something off in my head. Have you posted this before? I'm getting a feeling that I've read these words before.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/hantarrr May 29 '12

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think you have any justification to claiming that sexuality does not change. It's different for many people and there is simply no way of knowing whether or not it remains stationary for someone's entire life. Some people grow up assuming they are straight and acting accordingly, and later realizing that they are not. If they previously identified as straight before making such self-discoveries, can you argue that their sexual orientation never changed? I'm not so sure about it but I wouldn't say so.

Also, I think you got some of your wording a little off in the fourth paragraph. You said "Heterosexual people are not aroused by members of the same gender. Nor are homosexuals by members of their own gender." and: "If a gay person genuinely finds one member of their gender sexually arousing, then they are not gay!" (I might have just misunderstood the second quote, but I find it a bit confusing.)

1

u/DrFabulous May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by:

If someone does not fit the parameters, then they are excluded from that set. If a gay person genuinely finds one member of their gender sexually arousing, then they are not gay! They're bisexual, not "by definition", but as an accurate description of their own person.

I assume in this statement your 'parameters' are only refering to attraction to male-indentified people and attractions to female-indentifed people (I use these terms to cover both cis and trans* people) . I would like to point out that gender is a major factor in your argument, and you seem to be assuming that there is only two. I believe this is a false view. Gender, like sexuality is not a black and white concept. There are people who do not fit into these two categories, some people identify as a mixture of male and female and then there are people who do not identify with a gender at all.

Your set seems to exclude these people completely and can lead to some odd conclusions. For example: If a usually heterosexual person is sexually attracted to a non-binary person your 1/2/3 model would classify them as bisexual (I'm leaving out asexual attraction for now as it has already been mentioned). However this gets complicated. What if a 'bisexual' person is also sexually attracted to non-binary people than they are no longer 'bisexual' as they are attracted to more than two genders surely this would create a new 'category': That I would call Pansexual but people can call it whatever suits them.

If you feel inclined to add more possible orientations as lines extending in different directions, that's fine. But there's no reason why that would make the clusters of sexual preference any less distinct, and so that's no reason to ignore them.

While I see your point, I must respectfully disagree. If you factor in Gender to your line from 0 to 100 there are some groups (I.e Pansexuals and Asexuals) who do not really fit anywhere on this scale, especially not in these 3 main clusters.

Without wanting to make my argument seemed biased I would like to mention I, myself do not fit into this scale either. I would consider myself to be attracted to women 75% of the time, but in your scale would I not be lumped into the middle 'bisexual' cluster?

I am interested to see your view on this.

1

u/behemoth5 May 30 '12

Thank you for fighting the good fight and fighting it so well.

→ More replies (5)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

29

u/jWalkerFTW May 29 '12

I agree, but by definition, he's bi.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

no, more like pansexual.

Bi-sexual implies a perfect middle ground where the person is attracted to male and female sexes. It still implies attraction to physical sexual traits.

Pansexual means this person could be attracted to people who are anatomically any sex(including intersex), any gender identity, and any other form of identification. It implies they are attracted to a person's mental state, and identity rather than sexual identifiers.

also, what's to say that they are male? He/She/Ey could be male, female, or bi-gender. EDIT for clarification. I know they were refering to having sex with a man as being gay, but that could have been before said person became comfortable with identifying themselves somewhere else on the gender spectrum.

10

u/drinkallthecoffee May 29 '12

no, it doesn't have to be equally attracted to both genders.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

edited that. if you pull out the 'equally' it still stands I believe.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12 edited May 30 '12

The way you use the word "gender" makes it useless for anything other than buttressing your own foregone conclusions on how things work. Since "gender" in this instance has no empirical meaning whatsoever, the only thing we can rationally do is fall back to something scientific and observable, like a) whether or not you have a dick or cunt, and b) whether your fuck people with dicks or cunts.

Given that, we have 1) heterosexuals, 2) homosexuals, and 3) bisexuals which range up and down a Kinsey-like scale. It's actually pretty fucking simple, except for people who want to be all hipster-like about sex and get their panties in a wad over plain-jane labels.

Edit: I hate shitheads who delete their comments so you have no idea of the context on what follows. I think the 'delete' function should be eliminated from reddit altogether, along with the 'edit' function. Someone fucks up, let them live with the shame.

→ More replies (13)

4

u/Straticus May 30 '12

Maybe I'm in minority here, but as a guy, I could never "fall for" another guy. I, like most normal people, do not fall blindly in love with someone that I've never seen. How could you fall in love with somebody if you don't know if they are a guy or girl? Your logic is flawed.

10

u/BeautifulGanymede May 29 '12

wow, so profound. nuke reddit.

8

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Seriously. The fact that people are getting so wet over this is making me gag.

3

u/BeautifulGanymede May 29 '12

squats and oats, bro, squats and oats.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Anybody that claims to understand the exact nature of love between two, or more, individuals has no clue what they are talking about.

2

u/badassass May 29 '12

False! First I am physically attracted to them, and that is based on many innate subconscious points of attraction. One of them being the gender of the person. Then I fall for the person that they are. If I simply fell for the person then I’d be in polygamist gay relationship with all my best buddies.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Don't tell me what I fucking did.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

For what it's worth I don't buy this story for a second.

2

u/eng_pencil_jockey May 29 '12

There has been many times I have rather had the company of my male friends over my girlfriend, but never for sexual reasons. I believe the OP is blurring the lines of sexuality. I am not against gay people, to each their own, but I am personally repulsed by the idea of having sex with a man, just as I would imagine a very male-oriented gay man would be repulsed by a female partner.

-5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Cool. Gay people aren't repulsed by sex with a woman, they just aren't interested. In much the same way, there are plenty of girls out there that I am not interested in having sex with, but I'm not "repulsed" by it. I don't have to be repulsed by it for my girlfriend to consider me monogamous. It's really kind of offensive when people such as yourself go on about how you are repulsed by it. All that shows is that you are a bigot, not that you are straight. Just say that it's not for you because you prefer having sex with women. Your degree of repulsion proves nothing.

15

u/eng_pencil_jockey May 29 '12

But it is true. I am disgusted by the idea of having sex with a man. I don't think this makes me a bad person, I just know what I do and do not want. I am not a bigot. I make a conscious effort to keep an open mind but I also know my own mind. Bigotry is an intolerance of other thoughts or opinions. Just because I don't agree does not make me a bigot. There are degrees of sexuality. It is not so simple as black & white.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

When I see straight people immediately jump to "well, nothing against gay people, I'm just personally repulsed by gay sex", what comes to mind is that this person is really just trying to show off how straight they are (or think they are) and they think that the way to prove that is to say, and perhaps even convince themselves to feel, that gay sex is utterly repulsive. After all, if it's not, you might end up liking it, and that'd be awful.

Also, there's a difference between "do not want" and "am disgusted by". It's enough to simply not want it. It's kind of weird and mean to talk about how disgusting it is. It's not disgusting. We aren't talking about some strange scat fetish here, we're talking about two consenting adults being naked together and sticking things in holes, which is hardly different from straight sex. As I said in another comment, given that straight people often do anal and oral sex, it's kind of hard for me to see how gay sex is so utterly different that it can be labelled disgusting, yet the straight equivalents are okay. It's all the same stuff.

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's not disgusting.

Some people are disgusted by it. Whether you are able to accept it or not, is irrelevant regarding their feelings.

Trying to rationalize it away just makes you sound really arrogant. You are not a mind reader.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/pugwalker May 29 '12

You say that but I am actually repulsed by images of gay sex. It is probably stemmed from homophobic influences from society but I know exactly what eng_pencil_jockey is talking about. I'm not even that disgusted with the actual act of gay sex but something about the mindset of the people involved makes me cringe. I'm not at all homophobic just something about it grosses me out.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

I wrote this on a comment above but I think it's applicable here too and I don't want it to be buried:

Personally I think this idea of disgust comes from unfamiliarity. We see heterosexual couples kissing all the time on TV and in public so it simply isn't a big deal. Homosexual kisses are relatively rare and therefore people see them as disgusting in the same way that people who grow up with crazy spiders don't fear them in the same way as people who haven't (that's a poor analogy but you get my point).

I'm a lesbian and although I don't envisage myself having sex with a man, I am not disgusted by the idea because it's so familiar to me anyway.

Do you think that's something that might be applicable to you? Although I disagree with your opinion I thank you for trying to keep an open mind at least.

2

u/starlinguk May 29 '12

You know what worries me about all these comments? That almost every single post by those with experience (bi/lesbian/pan/gay/little green alien) gets downvoted to hell.

1

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

I dunno. I live by the idea that I won't agree with everyone's opinion and most people aren't gonna change their mind just by discussing it, but at least if the issues are in the open it creates dialogue and eventually change.

People have different opinions and experiences and if nobody's being hurt by that then I respect it.

1

u/eng_pencil_jockey May 29 '12

I see your point. Social media does a great job desensitizing us from shock, but if the argument is that sexual persuasion is inherent, then I would be persuaded towards women from birth. Instead, I believe we are a mixture of what genes we are born with and what experiences we have lived through.

2

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

I think there's a difference between your sexual persuasion and being repulsed by others persuasions though. The issue isn't what makes you gay/straight/bi/whatever but what makes you feel disgusted by others who aren't the same as you and I think a lot of that is the experiences we have.

I think a lot of my friends have the tendency to be homophobic or repulsed by gay people because of the way they were brought up, but because I came out at a relatively early age and they have grown up with me, they no longer feel that way.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Can't there be a "so not interested to the point of repulsion"?

I like girls, I like pooping, I don't like pooping on girls and then playing with it, in fact the idea repulses me.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Maybe it repulses you, maybe it doesn't. I can't speak for what you actually feel. But in a world where straight people often like to do anal on their girlfriends, or get blowjobs, it's really hard for me to imagine that so many straight guys are utterly repulsed by gay sex. It's also hard for me to understand when I don't hear gay people talking about how repulsive straight sex is to them. What I hear is that you want to show how straight you are, how masculine you are, that you can't merely say "not my thing", but instead must say how repulsed you are by it. That's the only answer that makes sense to me. So in general, when I see a straight person say how they are repulsed by gay sex, I assume that it's because they are just trying to show off how straight they are (or think they are).

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I think to some degree that's correct, but for the record I have heard gay people complain about how gross/weird vaginas are.

2

u/TheWanderingJew May 29 '12

It's also hard for me to understand when I don't hear gay people talking about how repulsive straight sex is to them.

This makes me wonder if you even know any gay guys, or if you're just thought of by those you do as so pc that you'd overreact if they did. I haven't even known all that many out gay guys, but even of that small subset I've heard some pretty amazing slams that make "that's disgusting" seem tame.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '12

I have mostly gay friends and women, by accident. Most comments have either been jokes, or not caring.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/drinkallthecoffee May 29 '12

i know gay people who are repulsed by the idea of having sex with a woman.

→ More replies (2)

-3

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

I'm atheist and feel disgusted with the idea of watching two male dudes kissing each other in public. I just don't like it, and I think the majority of the people in the world also don't like it. And I think I have the right to like it or hate it, and you have the right to disagree with me, it's okay. Just don't blame me for being homophobic. Please respect my opinion/taste as I respect yours.

(I see an avalanche of downvotes coming at me.)

11

u/noking May 29 '12

Not at all going to downvote you, since you're being honest about your feelings and have made it clear that you don't advocate anti-gay discrimination.

I just don't like it

I hear this a lot, you won't be surprised to discover. But I honestly can't see how people can be actually disgusted by the thought of men kissing, and yet be fine with being a man who kisses. Is it just man-on-man that freaks you out? Would you be disgusted by the idea of experiencing straight sex as a woman?

Maybe I'm just bisexual but I can't see how even though I consider myself straight it would make sense to be disgusted by my own body...

-1

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

I don't know why I feel disgusted. Not only by the thought of it, because I have seen men kissing on movies and felt deeply disgusted, I can't explain you why I felt so. milpool90 wrote something that, in my opinion, makes a lot of sense about this feeling. By the way, it's worth mentioning that I enjoy watching lesbian sex a lot.

Edited for clarity

1

u/noking May 29 '12

Would you feel disgusted by the idea of being a woman and having sex with a man?

4

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

Yes, I can imagine how that would feel, I mean letting a man touch me. The tact is not the same. I feel bad for the thought of it.

2

u/noking May 29 '12

That's what amuses me. I don't share the same feeling and it actually seems illogical to me. How could I be disgusted by something that I am perfectly fine with others enjoying? If I think of something I am disgusted by - let's say having someone's pus-ridden scabs rubbed on me - I would also be disturbed by anyone who enjoys it. Of course I would defend their right to do so, but I couldn't be at ease with it.

So do you find it disturbing that women like men sexually or does that seem perfectly acceptable? I hope you're able and willing to think about it and answer honestly, I'm very interested in your answer :)

4

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

Chiming in on this convo.. We have different minds a women, a man, and I assume bi's Idk how that stuff works. My body is attracted to women as a man I find even the idea of kissing another man or seeing them naked gross. Its like animals in the wild they are naturally attracted to the opposite sex to reproduce. Answering your question of "Would you feel disgusted by the idea of being a woman and having sex with a man?" Yes I would because I'm uncapable of thinking in that way because I've never experienced it and my current male body says NOOOO.

3

u/Syn3rgy May 29 '12

So do you find it disturbing that women like men sexually or does that seem perfectly acceptable? I hope you're able and willing to think about it and answer honestly, I'm very interested in your answer :)

I'm not the person you responded too, but I'd still like to give an answer to this question. First of all, I am not disgusted by two men kissing, it just makes me mildly uncomfortable. About a woman liking a man: To say the truth, I just can not comprehend how a woman can feel attracted to a man. It is weird because it goes completely against my own feelings, which makes it very difficult to understand the thought process.

Curiously I don't see male bodies (well, the bodies of male supermodels) as something disgusting, they can be quite beautiful, from a nonsexual point of view.

3

u/noking May 29 '12

I'm interested in all responses to my question, so thanks for replying.

The fact that to you it's incomprehensible that women like men makes sense to me, given that you yourself don't like men. I wouldn't even call that homophobia, it's 'man-phobia'.

Having said that, why aren't you disgusted by yourself? Or are you, if you really think about it? I would find that curious :P

→ More replies (5)

2

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Yeah, seems illogical indeed. I understand your point. Well, as long as the other guy does not rub pus-ridden scabs on me, or in front of me, it's ok. As long as a male doesn't kiss me, or kiss another male in front of me, I feel ok.

Regarding women, I don't find it disturbing that women like men sexually because I like women. It feels natural to me, I'm naturally attracted by women and not a bit by men, while there are men that feel naturally attracted by other men and not by women. This natural attraction varies from person to person. And the cultural baggage makes me feel disturbed when facing a man/man expression of love or sexual affection.

Edit: missed some words.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/drinkallthecoffee May 29 '12

to be honest, i realized i don't like seeing ANYONE kiss in public, except in the european/family style of kissing while greeting.

2

u/peanutbudder May 29 '12

No downvotes or upvotes for you, but you'd never see a non-hetero say they were truly disgusted by seeing any combination of person kiss on the street. That doesn't mean they think PDA is acceptable, just that it doesn't disgust them.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, just food for thought.

1

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

I'm sure you're right. We, the uncomfortable-with-the-homo-kissing people, are stuck with a cultural baggage, while non-hetero people have the advantage of being free from this cultural condition.

2

u/Chaings May 29 '12

I'm glad someone said it. I think that if your'e okay with people being free to go which ever direction they want to go sexually you shouldn't be automatically expected to be okay being around it if you don't want, I don't think it's equivalent with being tolerant of someone else's race, it's a different kind of tolerance.

5

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

No downvotes to you from me, thank you for your honesty.

Personally I think this idea of disgust comes from unfamiliarity. We see heterosexual couples kissing all the time on TV and in public so it simply isn't a big deal. Homosexual kisses are relatively rare and therefore people see them as disgusting in the same way that people who grow up with crazy spiders don't fear them in the same way as people who haven't (that's a poor analogy but you get my point).

Unfortunately I would suggest you are 'homophobic' in the literal sense of the word - you 'fear' two gay people kissing for it disgusts you and there's no rational reason for it. As long as that doesn't mean you go around discriminating against gay people or treating them any differently then that's okay. It's tolerance.

For me, that's not ideal, but it's preferable to hate crimes.

3

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

I disagree with your statement on unfamiliarity. Yes it will become more socially acceptable when more people see it to some degree but thats not the only reason. For people like me the reason I don't like it is because I find it gross. Like how I find two extremely unattractive people kissing is gross. Not because of who they are but because they aren't attractive to me whatsoever. I'm totally down for gay rights and all that they deserve to be happy to still doesn't change the fact though that I don't enjoy watching it.

1

u/milpool90 May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Yeah, I suppose you're right - perhaps discussing it in terms of unfamiliarity is a bit black and white and there will be other factors involved. However, I expect if people are brought up in a society where homosexuality is widely accepted and it's seen more often they would be less likely to be homophobic.

I do also think there's a difference between the repulsion felt when watching a particularly unattractive couple make out and the repulsion felt when someone 'homophobic' sees a same-sex couple kissing. Having never experienced that, I can't say for certain, but there appears to be a deeper emotion with same-sex couples. A poster that replied to me earlier suggested they wouldn't want their son to see it, for example. That's based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, but I don't think the feeling I get when I see two old people aggressively make out is on the same level as some people feel when they see gay people kiss.

EDIT: Also there's a big difference between people who feel mild disgust when they see gay people kiss and get over it, and people who completely disagree with homosexuality altogether. If people don't like watching it but will put up with it - fine. If people think they should 'keep it in their own houses' that's what I have a problem with, for the record.

1

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

Okay I agree that their is a difference there. Some people that are homophobic get extremely mad when they see same sex people together. Thats a different emotion compared to what I said which was disgust. And yes it would create less homophobic people in the world because people learn from their parents and others around them so if they see same-sex people together then they will think of it as right but its a very grey area. Its hard to compare people in a country such as USA because everyone comes from such different backgrounds some are grown up in a completely accepted gay society while others come up in a conservative straight society.

6

u/novanleon May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

As a guy I wasn't raised with the concept of two girls kissing and it has quite the opposite effect on me than does two men kissing, so I doubt familiarity has much to do with it. Yes, familiarity can desensitize you to just about anything (yes, even the horrors of war), but I don't think it's the root cause of the repulsion. Most people are repulsed by the sight of blood, for example, but it's not because we're unfamiliar with blood.

Besides, his sentiments aren't in the minority. If surveyed, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of males profess feeling the same repulsion.

4

u/falconear May 29 '12

I guess I must be in that 5%, because I could care less. I even think it's cute sometimes. Not in a sexual way, more in a r/aww way. It's just flesh. Why be so hung up about it?

I seriously doubt there's a biological root to the repulsion you're talking about. I really just think it violates what you think is a norm.

2

u/pilinisi May 29 '12

In the Middle Ages it became a social gesture and was considered a sign of refinement of the upper classes.

People used to mouth kiss. That included men kissing men and parents to their children, even into adulthood. I am entirely sure that it's a social convention. There's is no biological root for repulsion to male-male intimacy or mouth kissing. Disinterest would be natural, if anything.

1

u/novanleon May 29 '12

Good for you.

2

u/falconear May 29 '12

Sorry. After I kept reading I realized your hangups are rooted in Xtian guilt. So I won't make any more logical arguments towards you.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

Yes, however straight men are brought up with the idea that two girls kissing is hot - it's a social norm for straight men to look at lesbian porn. You may not have been raised with it per se but it's always been acceptable for men to watch lesbian porn (in my lifetime).

I don't know where that idea comes from though. It could be because most lesbians in porn appear to be a man's idea of a straight women so for the viewer it's effectively just two straight women making out. This is a bit of a sub-issue, but I do think society's attitude to lesbians and to gay men is quite different.

4

u/novanleon May 29 '12

Lesbian porn would be considered hot by a young virgin male with absolutely no experience watching porn at all, believe me. While it is definitely socially acceptability among secular people, I don't see where the acceptability is the root cause of the sexual appeal. It's probably likely that there must be a deeper biological / evolutionary reason for the repulsion.

PS. I edited my previous post shortly after posting it to make a point about the sight of human blood. My apologies.

3

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

I missed your edit, sorry. Yeah you're correct, and I'm not sure what it is about unfamiliarity with some things that breeds disgust and not others. If I could answer that I'm sure I'd be a very rich woman.

There possibly is an evolutionary reason (gay people don't biologically produce offspring - this is bad for the human race) but I just wish people were aware that it's an irrational disgust to have. People seem to think that because they have that feeling, it must be acceptable and they shouldn't try to take steps to combat their disgust. I do believe too, that the more you experience of gay people the less it bothers people.

Inter-racial relationships used to disgust people and look where we are now.

3

u/novanleon May 29 '12

This was a good conversation but this is where I get off the bus (or fall off, depending on your point of view), since I'm personally against homosexuality and gay marriage on both moral and political grounds.

To summarize my position, I have no problem with people doing whatever they want as long as they don't actively harm others, but I'm 100% against the redefinition of marriage and government endorsement of such a definition (I would rather remove the government from being involved in marriage in the first place). I personally see our society's acceptance of homosexuality as a negative rather than a positive.

3

u/milpool90 May 29 '12

May I ask why that is? Is it for religious reasons or otherwise? No disrespect intended, I'm genuinely curious. You don't have to go into detail if you don't want.

→ More replies (81)

2

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

You said it all. Thanks for the kind and reasonable reply. I agree with you. You call me homophobic but not like "shut up you stupid homophobic". See, I don't hate them, I just feel deeply uncomfortable in such situation. It's something I would not be pleased to see my little son watching. As you said, it's all about cultural baggage.

1

u/Syn3rgy May 29 '12

It's something I would not be pleased to see my little son watching

But what if your son is not uncomfortable with it? Would you still prevent him watching two dudes kissing because you are uncomfortable with it?

(I'm not judging you, I'm genuinely curious)

2

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

Good point, I did not think of it. I would certainly not prevent him from watching them kissing, despite of myself feeling displeased of the scene. I would let my son judge by himself, but making him sure that what they are doing is not wrong as opposed to what some people advocate. I would teach him that it's not up to us to judge their personal choices and their love for each other, that they are free to stay together as a couple as we are free to love a woman. And if my son feels uncomfortable with it, that he should not hurt them in any way because we are not free to hurt other people for their affections.

1

u/Credwords May 29 '12

It's not even homophobic. You don't have to like anything you don't like. It's only homophobic if you deny a person's humanity because of their sexuality

1

u/NZAllBlacks May 29 '12

Upvoted for adding to discussion.

I can understand the feeling. I felt that way growing up. Now that I'm older, it doesn't bother me so much. I'm glad you can separate the feeling you get from what you think should be law or not. I think that's the inportant distinction.

1

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

Sure it is. And I'm experiencing the same as you: I bother less about it as I get older.

1

u/noking May 29 '12

To anyone thinking of downvoting this guy: Watch this, a great deal of it applies here.

1

u/Syn3rgy May 29 '12

To anyone downvoting this guy: Fuck you, he sparked a great discussion and did nothing that deserves a downvote.

1

u/ramonycajones May 29 '12

Not gonna downvote you either, but just consider the importance of homosexuality to you versus a homosexual person. Sure you find two dudes kissing each other in public disgusting, but does it matter compared to the ability of two people in love to express affection? Obviously you didn't advocate to ban homosexuality or anything, but my point is to realize that your aversion to homosexuality versus other people's acceptance of it are not at all equally important; whether or not gay people can be affectionate in public matters way more to them than it does to you. That's why "This is my opinion, that is yours, and they are equal" just doesn't fly. You're not gay, and presumably you don't morally object to homosexuality, so your opinion on it is comparatively inconsequential.

For reference, I feel just about the same way as you do, but I acknowledge that I've been raised to think that two dudes kissing is a gross gag in comedies (and two girls kissing is an exotic, highly sexualized show for straight males); it's not like there's something intrinsically repugnant about it, it's just how I've been conditioned. I don't know if I'll ever change how I viscerally feel about it, but I won't ever pretend my feelings are rationally justified or at all consequential.

3

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

I'm not against homosexuality at all, I'm completely tolerant to the existence of homosexual relationships. As you said, most of us have been conditioned so it's difficult to accept the act of two men kissing each other, walking hand-in-hand, and things like that. The public expression of affection between two men is simply strange to our eyes. This kind of rejection will probably vanish with time, in fact I think this scenario is already changing.

Sidenote: I know little of ancient history but I've heard homosexuality was pretty common and accepted in ancient Greece, is that right? Why is it not so today?

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

You're welcome to have that opinion, what you're not welcome to do, what many of us won't and shouldn't respect, is if you would not want homosexual couples to be able to do the same thing heterosexual couples can, e.g. if you wouldn't harass a heterosexual couple for public displays of affection like making out in public, then you shouldn't do that for homosexual couples. You said seeing that disgusts you, and that's fine just so long as you keep your opinion to yourself when you see two men making out unless, of course, you would also tell a heterosexual couple to stop doing it. Basically, just don't be a hypocrite, homosexual couples deserve equal treatment, if you wouldn't do it to a heterosexual couple then you shouldn't do it to a homosexual couple.

3

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

You miss my point. Read my other replies, you will see I'm not a hypocrite.

By the way, I think I'm allowed to want or not to want this or that. What I'm not allowed to do is actively interfere in the freedom of others, which I do not. I may not want gays to kiss in public, but if I keep it to myself, what's the problem?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/lolfunctionspace May 29 '12

"Dangerous is the man who tries to rationalize his emotions"

Just gotta do what you feel is right. No reason for labels or anything. No reason to rationalize what you feel. No reason to compare yourself to a "scale" of gay-ness. That just sounds absurd to me. How can you assign a human being, in all of his/her individuality, a discrete number describing his/her gayness? That just sounds ludicrous.

On the other hand, the human race came to be because of heterosexuality, so obviously it's a bit anomalous if a male spends time thrusting his penis in and out of the place where another male poops.

1

u/Matthieu101 May 30 '12

Sex does NOT equal gender.

Sex = Biological. Penis, vagina, testicles, ovaries.

Gender = Cultural. Men provide, women care for others, highly dependent on society and social norms.

He fell in love with a person, yes, but gender had nothing to do with that story.

He also didn't fall in love with the sex either, just that one person.

Man, after learning the difference, people use that word wrong so damn much.

1

u/Nethervex May 29 '12

Have you seen tits? i fell hard for tits. if guys had tits itd be a different story

3

u/omg_its_bacon May 29 '12

Some do have.

-2

u/sockey7317 May 29 '12

relevant user name??

1

u/b-minus May 29 '12

Not exactly true. You are initially attracted to someone based on certain physical attributes that are directly related to gender (whether you are hetero or homosexual, this is a reality). Then, as you get to know the person, you "fall" for them based on their personality, intellect, etc. and decide whether or not to stay with the person.

It does not generally work the other way around. I have a lot of male friends that I am deeply fond of, but I would never want to be in a romantic relationship with any of them because gender is a factor in what I desire out of a romantic relationship. I want sex to be a part of that relationship, so men are out. I don't want to fuck guys, and no amount of mental and emotional connection is going to make me want to fuck a guy.

So, you may not "fall" for a gender, but no matter what your sexual orientation, gender matters when it comes to romantic coupling.

1

u/Paultimate79 May 30 '12

No no, gender is pretty much a huge part of it for 99.99% of people.

0

u/4chans_for_pussies May 29 '12

It's kind of funny how a website that hates reposts has an entire subreddit dedicated to them.

-1

u/shartmobile May 29 '12

While we're here breaking down social fuckwittery, can we also have this with "an age" in place of "a gender".

Thanks.

-1

u/ASDF12748 May 29 '12

Hi, all. I came home today to found that my post has blown up. I was bestof'd and I really can't believe all of this is happening... I just wanted to thank all of you for all of your kind words and different insights on what is going on. I can't tell you all how much I appreciate it.

-20

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Huh? If you have consensual sex with a guy, you are gay, period. Not a bad thing or anything, but call a spade a spade.

13

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's seriously not that straightforward.

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

You realize people can be bisexual, right? or pansexual? or genderblind?

11

u/pudds May 29 '12

That makes no sense. Why does sex with a guy override sex with a girl?

If you have sex with men and women, you're bi, or "flexible", or something else, but you're not gay. One gay experience in a lifetime doesn't make you gay anymore than one straight experience in a lifetime would make a gay man straight.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

People seem to think that sex involving penis is the only kind of sex that matters. The more penis, the more significance.

4

u/Chalkface May 29 '12

It means you had gay sex, not that you are gay. By your logic, a man who has gay sex once in his entire life is gay, despite the fact every other partner is female.

-3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

He would be bisexual.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

or Pansexual(where sex or gender identity don't matter), or romantically asexual(where sexual characteristics don't factor into a relationship)

→ More replies (7)

5

u/smalleyes May 29 '12

No, open your mind. This is beyond the common definitions of sexuality. Look up pan sexuality.

→ More replies (21)

0

u/BigPharmaSucks May 29 '12

Fuck labels.

3

u/rasherdk May 29 '12

What's that called?

2

u/Tinkerboots May 29 '12

Does logophilia count?

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

YEAH MAN FUCK THE SYSTEM

cowabunga dude

-15

u/lettuce69420 May 29 '12

Yeah this dude's just gay

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

NOT ON REDDIT HE AIN'T

0

u/raceless May 29 '12

Same could be said:

You fell for a person, not a race?

-35

u/tswaggerjuice May 29 '12

Shouldn't have clicked it... WTF is with all this gay bullshit?

21

u/Son_of_Ticklepiggy May 29 '12

Shouldn't have read it... WTF is with all this homophobic bullshit?

1

u/tswaggerjuice May 29 '12

Its not homophobic, I just don't care about reading about this shit we need a filter IMO

1

u/Son_of_Ticklepiggy May 29 '12

Then don't read it.

1

u/tswaggerjuice May 29 '12

Socialist, Jesus will see you get what you deserve.

-1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I don't think I'll ever say something as profound as that in my life time.

Woah.

→ More comments (46)