fandomsecrets | (no subject)

(no subject)

⌈ Secret Post #148 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 98 secrets from Secret Submission Post #022.
Secrets Not Posted: 0 broken links, [ 1 ] not!secrets, 0 not!fandom.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Sunday, June 3rd, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: Here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Umm... yes. I also take people's word for it. That wasn't what I was talking about.

I was using the term "rigid boundaries of heterosexual and homosexual" to mean that someone is that way 100% of the time, all the time, forever. That's certainly possible, but I don't know how common that really is. *shrugs*

(deleted comment)

I think what she is saying is more along the lines of human sexuality falling on a continuum where there are no rigid boundaries. Rather, you fall somewhere on the line perhaps closer to homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. There would be some people who are absolutely one of those categories where there is absolutely no flexibility in their inclinations. But given the structure of such a continuum most people would not. The ones who are closer to one side or the other or the middle will no doubt have a much easier time declaring their sexual identity whereas the people who fall half way between heterosexual and bisexual for example may not see things quite so clearly. At that point I believe the influences in your life, both those you control and those you don't tend to guide you.

According to the Kinsey studies, women also tend to have a more fluid reaction to sexuality where it is often more common for those inclinations to change over time.

New terms are being coined in response to some of the limitations of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual. Pansexual or omnisexual, for instance, are terms meant to explain that a person is attracted to another person and not necessarily a gender. And of course there are all sorts of attractions. Even to the extent that you choose friends (often of the same sex, no) is a level of attraction even if we rarely define it as such.

There is research, like the Kinsey study, that validates some of what I have said. Although for any study you find on a given matter, I'm sure you can find it's counterpoint somewhere. Much of it is my own peronsal experience in connection with countless conversations with others with a full range of personal definitions for the sexuality.

My apologies if this little diatribe was unwanted.

Ah, thank you! You said it much more eloquently than I did.

What you said was totally valid and well-worded that's why I wanted to support it. You were just presupposing that everyone had the same sort of mindset that we do on sexuality. In saying that the rigid boundaries don't exist you forgot that they exist in so much as society actively enforces them. ♥

(deleted comment)

I do believe the only thing that is true of everyone's sexuality is that everyone's sexuality is different.

I think I understand the point you are making. However, the construct I put forth does, in fact, encompass that which you are saying. I am simply saying it is the minority and not the majority that most people seem to assume it to be.

Fluidity isn't the only issue, it is just a further complication of the original continuum.

Sexuality, attraction, desire, gender, reproduction, etc. are infinitely complicated and complex and we mere mortals go about with our big label maker (because those things are awesome to play with, no?) trying to keep ourselves from constantly falling into the minutiae of arguing over semantics and nomenclature. (Although, clearly, I enjoy it.) We simplify things so we can put them into neat little categories and file the information away in our brain to pull it out later when needed. I'm certainly not saying I am above it! We have to operate in this manner or, frankly, everything would grind to a halt. It is a practical way of operating and there is nothing wrong with that.

The only problem is that we need to remember that we did it in the first place. We need to keep open minds and realize there is greater complexity whether we want to deal with it at any given time or not.

(deleted comment)

a lesbian may see that a guy is good looking, but it doesn't mean that she's anything other than lesbian

YES!!!! Exactly! That is what I was trying to convey. Terms are limiting. Thank you. Have a good day.

The studies you are refering to (I have the link if you want) actually proves that men have more rigid sexuality while women have more flexible sexuality, and never proved anything about male bisexuality.

And heterosexuality and homosexuality, on an unwavering and unmoving scale, also exists and not just because society enforces them. There are homosexual animals that mate only exclusively with their gender, at the expense of not propegating their genes.

Saying that men have a more ridgid sexuality or that women have a more fluid sexuality is the same statement in the sense that a glass may be half empty or half full of course.

I also clearly stated that while there were studies much of my information was based on personal introspection and obersvation.

I believe I also explained that, while rare, I believed it was possible to land so close to one *end* or another of the spectrum that no other inclinations may be noticed. While you may be able to research the mating habits of humans and other animals, you can not as easily measure attraction. And not all attraction is immediately or necessarily sexual, but I think it is still a factor. I may be attracted to men and women and yet only have sex with men. You can say that makes me straight or you can say that makes me bisexual. I say that makes the issue much more complicated than people would like to believe.

But just as I believe that sexuality cannot be rigidly defined nor do I see my perseptions as rigid on this issue. They grow and redirect as new information becomes available. If anything, I find asexuality the most interesting, challenging concept to either integrate into my construct or not. I cannot say anything I have heard here causes me to waver on what I have said. But I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Only with open dialog and freedom of thought can someone really approach finding a genuine answer to such questions if at all.

I mainly just pulled that up to show something that most scientists know while most psychologists don't know: Studies are not the be-all end all, especially when they are not consistent in conclusive results and do not hold enough control groups or wide demographics. Studies on bisexuality today using the mechanics of measuring genital arousal while the subjects to experiment view erotic images would indicate that there are almost no male bisexuals, period, while female bisexuals exist everywhere.

Of course, I've met real male bisexuals, so that isn't very true.

The fact of the matter is, it's foolish to make any rash generalizations on sexuality, speaking of rigid or fluid terms. This is because we are still discovering the neurochemistry and physiology of romantic love, and how it correlates with attraction and sex. They are controlled in different parts of the brain, and while they are entwined they can also exist exclusively of each other (attraction and romantic attraction). Until more scientific research is done on the subject, one can only speculate, but one should also not project their own views of sexuality on to an entire population.

I would agree with all of that assuming you are not implying I was speaking to the counter. But whether you reply or not, I leave the issue here rather than end up on a wanking site. ^_^ Have a good one.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6

no subject

no subject

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6

Re: Re 6