Do you have to have sex first before you can claim to be X?

So I think this is an interesting discussion that would do well in it's own thread.

The claim is that you must have had sex with the opposite or same gender before you can claim to be heterosexual or homosexual (or any other sexuality for that matter).

Before that though you are nothing, just asexual I suppose.

I have brought up the point that physical or sexual attraction certainly accounts for something. I believe a child who has never had sex can know on some level of their sexual orientation simply based on who they are attracted to. You often see movies about virgins who claim to be heterosexual, or behave in what we believe to be a heterosexual way, as in chasing after the opposite sex/attempting to have sex with them. And while they are still virgins most of us would immediately identify them, based on their behavior or desire to hook up with 'hot chicks/babes' that they are in fact heterosexual.

However some here seem to believe that until that person actually does the physical act then they are not heterosexual, only asexual.

But if we look at how heterosexual and homosexual and other sexual identities are defined one only needs to have an attraction to the same or opposite gender in order to be identify as gay/straight.

at·trac·tion
/əˈtrakSHən/
Noun
The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something: "the timeless attraction of a good tune".
A quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire.
Synonyms
charm - appeal - attractiveness - pull - allurement

het·er·o·sex·u·al
/ˌhetərōˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Noun
A heterosexual person.
Synonyms
hetero

ho·mo·sex·u·al
/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
Noun
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

So what are all of your thoughts on how one determines their sexual identity? Must we first engage in some form of sexual behavior before we can identify as a certain orientation, or can we identify as a certain orientation simply by determining what gender we are attracted to?

 

I think there are MANY homosexually or heterosexually ORIENTED people that engage in the mechanics of sexual behaviors NOT specifically aligned with the actual sexual 'orientation' they possess. For example, an 'asexual' person can certainly have SEX with a man/woman... but not actually be attracted to the acts themselves.

I can relate to the above. I'm a homosexual and I've had sexual relations with women; but women do not INTEREST (turn me on, or attract) me sexually; not in the least. I can relate to them as a brother might a sister (which has frustrated more than a few women interested in 'me')... but touching MY (male) body parts to THEIR (female) body parts, isn't something that turns me on.

Now, one can argue about WHY I'm wired that way... but that is the way I've been wired since I could get a hard-on.

 

'Orientation', if we strip it down to its most basic meaning, refers to the direction in which something faces (and was originally in specific reference to facing the east).

Similarly, if we think of a basic compass, it has a needle that is oriented on/directed to point toward magnetic north by the pull of magnetic forces.

So what pulls a person's interest toward one sex or the other? What force is in action, directing their interest toward one sex or the other? What causes them to be oriented on one sex or the other?

If we're using words like 'homosexual, 'bisexual', 'heterosexual', 'asexual', etc. as labels to describe orientation, this is what we're talking about: the direction of a person's interest toward members of their same sex, or to some degree toward both sexes, or toward the opposite sex, or to not be directed toward persons of any sex.

So if a person is primarily attracted to the same sex, they're orientation is homosexual.

Etc., you get the point already, right?

Well that's just it. Some people are willfully refusing to 'get the point'. So we have to ask ourselves what motivates them to do so. I can't say for certain, but reading their comments in context, it seems clear the intent is on minimizing the significance of orientation - not to shed prejudices and view/treat everyone as equals (as is commonly asserted) - but as a means toward being dismissive of any claim related to the experience of being homosexual in orientation with regard to attraction, as such operates in a society where homosexual people are the targets of discrimination, hate, and violence.

But don't expect them to take ownership of that motivation. They will tell you (flat out lie to you) that they view everyone as equals, don't hate, etc. Pay attention instead to the tone of their arguments gathered as a whole. It is derisive, dismissive, and arrogant. That should tell you all you need to know about those posters and their motivation for targeting threads that discuss issues related to minority sexualities.

Now, we can also talk about a person's actions as being directed toward persons of the same-sex, opposite sex, etc, describing them also as homosexual, heterosexual, etc. And that would be just fine, except we have to look at this in context as well. In that context, it is commonly being used to pretend that orientation as a description of one's feelings of attraction don't exist. No, the only thing that matters we are told is the objective evidence of behavior we can observe - that this alone is what determines whether someone can be labeled as homosexual, heterosexual, etc. Note well the passive construction of that last sentence. It is the person who stands outside the situation; an external observer who labels the person(s) actually engaging in that behavior; a person who does not know the motivations of the people engaging in that behavior.

See the arrogance involved here? It's an outsider thinking they know better than the people who are 'insiders' - who have specific knowledge about what's happening, why it's happening, etc.

So if I tell someone I am gay, I am not telling them anything about how I have sex, or even if I've had/will have sex. I am only telling them about the specific, inside knowledge I have regarding the orientation of my feelings of attraction.

The difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals depends on what we're discussing - whether it's attraction or behavior. Outsiders are far more likely to try to limit the issue to what they know as external observers: behavior, and as if only the behavior matters or is the only difference that exists.

Which is why they're arguments must ultimately be doomed to fail. They are asking people to ignore their own inside experience with their feelings of attraction and how that has been connected to or even disconnected from their own behavior.

How we have sex is not the only difference between us. The orientation of attraction is another, and they know it even if they refuse to acknowledge it. Our experiences that arise in connection with our difference in orientation are another.

But rather than acknowledge those differences, we're treated to arguing reductio ad absurdium - reducing the matter in a way that demands we focus on the absurd. We're provided with descriptions of scenarios that are not analogous, and told to think that they are.

I say ignore them, just as they're ignoring what they know and refuse to admit.

 

Perhaps if you read the thread then you will know what the question is. Otherwise you are going very off topic here and I have half a mind to report you for it.

 

Yes, exactly! If anyone ever told me that I was not straight when I was younger, even though I felt that way and I dated boys I would be astounded that they claim to know more about myself than I really do.

Yes and while they continue to point out how we are all the same they refuse to address the fact that while being the 'same' there is still an entire group of people who cannot legally marry who they love despite all of this sameness. That is the most aggravating part of it I think.

You are absolutely right. Some people just refuse to listen to logic and reason and what they know is true (there is no doubt in my mind that these folks who claim otherwise did know at some level in their lives what their orientation was BEFORE they ever had sex.)

You make a lot of excellent and very clear and concise points here Perriquine. Now if only those who continue to make such absurd claims and comparisons would be willing to actually stand up and back up their arguments.

 

Addendum:

If we're using the standard of orientation as behavior, rather than orientation as attraction here are some ridiculous scenarios that arise:

A person has a single homosexual experience as the result of youthful experimentation. Are we to label them homosexual then?

If that same person's next experience is heterosexual, are they now to be labeled heterosexual? Or bisexual?

Think carefully about this. If the label we attach is always to be based on their last experience, we would say they are 'heterosexual'. If instead we say the label to be placed on them is one that describes their behavior as a whole, we would say they are 'bisexual'.

Now the 'gotchas'. If a person is labeled only according to their latest behavior, then the only bisexuals would be people who have sex with multiple partners of differing sexes at the same time. If we label a person's sexuality based on the whole of their experience, does one homosexual experience followed exclusively by heterosexual experiences mean we must still call them 'bisexual'? Or are we to consider the ratio of homosexual / heterosexual behavior in determining the label?

What a mess. Better to take people at their word when they self-label their orientation, than forcing a label upon them based on reported behavior.

Better still, why focus on labeling it at all? Because people's experiences and how they feel about them have importance to them, and play a role in shaping their identity. In discussing those experiences and the issues that rise up around them, it is far easier to use a single word like 'gay' than having to always say 'homosexual in orientation and behavior'. Easier that is, until some (insert pejorative here) starts mucking things up by insisting that the only difference is behavior, and then proceeding to apply that label to some unrelated behavior in an effort to create controversy.

One wishes they would just shut up already and find a new negative obsession to engage their mental masturbation, but there seems no light at the end of that tunnel.

 

I have loved boys since I was 12.. Adore them..and in the years to follow I had desire or attraction for them.

Everyone may be different.. but there was never any question for me... even though I had little girlfriends that I "loved" and held hands with until I was 12.. There was never that lust for a female.

 

How did you get from sexuality to meat products?... Wait never mind I probably don't want to know...

 

I also knew that I 'liked' other guys before 'liking' turned into sexual interest with the onset of adolescence. I would say my orientation was already there before it took on the dimension of sexual interest.

So as your post implies, it's not just sexual lust. That kind of interest arises out of a spark that is already there. There are qualities that initially spark our interest in a potential love match that aren't in operation in other relationships, and that spark of interest isn't necessarily connected just to sexual interests.

Unfortunately, the anti-gay commonly argue along the lines that gay people have merely become 'confused', mistaking the love of an intense friendship for something else. This again asks us to discount the role played by orientation of attraction. No doubt there are plenty of people who have had intense friendships that developed into something more, or who have mistaken a strong connection with another person as being a mutual interest in something more. Are anti-gay people just projecting their experience onto gay people in making the "sexual confusion" argument? Or are they ignoring their own experience in order to make arguments that put gay people in a box that doesn't fit?

Those kinds of situations aren't what we're talking about in the case of same-sex orientation. That spark of interest is already there, even when the two don't enjoy an intense friendship.

 

"Do you have to have sex first before you can claim to be X? "

X is decided by ones sexual attractions, one could be a 40 year old hetero-sexual virgin... cause it's all based on who they are sexually attracted too

if your sexually attracted to both sexes then you are bi-sexual (even if you have only had sex with one of the sexes)


.

 

The 'gay' people that I have known since childhood.. were gay long before sexual experience.

 

Yep. And while they may have experimented with being "heterosexual" (tried certain things sexually)... that surely didn't mean there were heterosexual.

As you suggest, being gay is about far more than who you might have sex with.

 

I've always known I was heterosexual both way before and long after "engaging in heterosexual sex". I didn't have to do it to be it.

Similarly, how many times have you heard of gay kids coming out to their parents only to be told: "We've always known".

More often than not unless they're shielding themselves from reality, parents of gay kids know it long before the kids know it themselves.

 

boy this thread delivered exactly what it intended, yet another group of like minded people saying the same thing ad nauseum. And guess what, my post using the EXACT logic put forth gets deleted!!!!!

I think of murdering all of the time but never have done it, therefore I must be a murderer.

If you've never ever dipped your wee wee into another man then you aren't gay. If you haven't even dipped it into a female then you aren't really hetero either.

But, if you want to use the silly logic that your thoughts make you what you are then I'm a rocket scientist

if you use a logic then be ready to have it used back at you

My pointing out the nonsense of your logic for some reason, in your warped thinking belittles your "cause"

it's high time you understand that other than what you do in bed, we're all alike. To try and portray yourselves as some type of different gender or species is absurd.

 

Yes... I have known that to happen, but I don't think parents should ask or insinuate.. I think they should wait.. and perhaps express their views on alternative lifestyles.

 

I am not particularly well informed on this, but I think that there would be some emotional struggle or period of difficulty in coming to terms with being homosexual. Perhaps not so much in this day and age. Anyway I am sympathetic.

One summer in the mid 1960s I had a crush on a brilliant young architecture student.. We were good company ... I remember the moment that he said to me.. I love you, but I don't like girls... and the long pause it took me to comprehend what he'd said.. He died some years ago of HIV related illnesses. I still remember him with kindness and admire him for telling me in such a loving way.

 

What do you expect? People aren't making these things up. If you ask someone where "up" or "down" are, the answers aren't going to 'vary'; no matter when/how you ask.

Put up a thread about homosexuality (something science reveals a great deal more about than ANY of the threads in this forum), and yes... certain answers WILL be very 'consistent'. And BTW, science doesn't always or necessarily 'reveal' what many already know, but it often provides ways to explain what many could not before.

This is 2012, not 1950; much is known about human sexuality that wasn't before.

And that has to do with human sexuality in what exact way(s)?

If you and others apply that kind of alogical approach in the face of science and what many already know... then it will very likely be seen as laughably foolish.

(see the above)

Most likely understand more about 'rocket science'... than you apparently do about human 'sexuality'. (Your commentary is basically hilarious; classic stuff to post elsewhere, as an example of how ignorant some people's thinking can be.)

Generally, most people will scrutinize what is claimed; of course.

If you think/believe that you are winning in this discussion, then you are misleading yourself.

Sounds like you need some 'sleep' in my opinion; that's what most of use the "bed" for.

And you can prove someone has made that claim how/where?!

Really man, you aren't making good sense.

 

Thoughts =/= Feelings. Learn the difference.

 

what an articulate, party-line post. Well done for repeating the same fallacy in the hopes that it becomes fact if said enough

My issue is the logic you use. When I use the exact logic but for a different item, then all of the sudden the logic is no longer supported by the gay activists; why is that?

Do you have something against consistency?

The assertion made is that one does not need to dip his wee wee into another male to be gay. So, with that said, then one need not ever perform brain surgery to call oneself a brain surgeon.

The issue is the warped logic here, much like you try to draw comparisons of race and gender to homosexuality when they aren't even similar.

I could care less who you sleep with. I do however take issue with trying to make homosexuality into more than what it is.

 

Perhaps you missed the 3 definitions listed on the first page of the thread sec. You do not have to have sex ever in your life to identify as a certain sexuality. You merely have to feel attraction (feeling) towards a certain gender to know what your sexual orientation is. Your sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to, not who you choose to have sex with.

 

why do you keep using the same non sequitur?

 

I'm so glad you answered that ridiculous, insensitive post in such a calm, logical manner!

I was arguing with myself to know if I should just ignore the offensive and stupid comments, or if I should take therisk to answer them the way I wanted to and. . . Be banned!

I do have a question, though. I have been heterosexual all my life, and have know I was very early. However, in my generation, there really was no knowledge of anything but heterosexuality before I was about 18 year old. So One question is: do you think that maybe the fear of homosexuality may in fact be the fear that, if kids are exposed to homosexual people, they will understand at an early age that homosexuality IS another orientation that is acceptable, and that they some kids may then become more aware that they are not attracted to the other sex, but to the same sex. . .and take that knowledge, and accept their True orientation at an early age.

And second question: although I have no doubt that I am heterosexual, i am often more attracted to gay men (not in terms of sexuality, but in terms of personality and sensitivity) than I am to heterosexual men, especially the most "macho" ones who absolutely turn me off by their callousness, bravado, and lack of sensitivity.

In the other hand, and although I have seceral good friends and former colleagues who are lesbian, I tend to feel that the "stereotypical" lesbian trigger the same negative personal feelings in me than the "overly macho men." And, although I have no problem with theirsexual orientation, I am repulsed by this kind of lesbians' attitude .

I guess I like my man to be more sensitive and less "physical," and . . . .the same for the women. I guess My orientation would be more towards the "middle of the road" for both genders.

Mayve I just fine extreme characteristics and behavior unattractive in everyone, and sexuality is no different!

 

You aren't serious; I think you are just into the 'noise' of arguing period.

Have at it man.

 

Actually his post was deleted because it was off topic.

You are both more than welcome to discuss the actual topic at hand though and give your case.

 

No problem. People's ignorance has been angering me enough to come right back at them these last few years. I'm tired of the irrational animus people think is right to cast out at homosexual people.

Don't get banned... just focus your mental energy upon how STUPID the meaning of what they say is. That does the trick. I essentially disconnect the writer from the thoughts they express; I can't figure them out anyway.

I wasn't told about homosexuality; but I was somehow attracted to my close male friends; I liked what I saw on their bodies.

Yes. Some people fear their children being homosexual. But FEAR is the problem there, not homosexuality itself. For it's that fear, which causes many to say/do the most horrible things to homosexual people (young or old). The "fear" is the man problem. I had to learn to fight back, or those fearful people would have driven me insane... with their hatred and rejection. You either get stronger or die.

Yep. I can understand that. I'm also attracted to decent, sensitive straight guys. But with many homosexual men, they have known the sting of rejection and abject hatred. After feeling that, often point-blank at many junctures as you grow up... it tends to make you think about what makes people really tick; you don't remain superficial about things, because you begin to understand that the more you know about people, the better chance you have of protecting yourself (surviving in a hostile society).

LOL!! Yes. I've had trouble with certain masculine lesbian women also. I think some of those women thought I was 'competing' with their masculinity; but I wasn't... I'm just a naturally masculine man. That may not have been what was behind the contention... but I think that had something to do with it. Most lesbian women have accepted me, as long as I approached them in a 'brotherly' fashion. And of course, they too have been hurt by this society in various ways... because they are gay. Even recently, I've heard egotistical guys 'fantasize' that their having sex with a gay woman, would make the woman 'straight'. That's the ladies-men who think every woman wants (or should want) them; they can easily have their ego beat down, by a lesbian woman.

I can relate. I absolutely adore sensitive, considerate people. I don't need/expect perfection from anyone... just someone who is gracious and generally kind. I've been very lucky to find perfectly heterosexual men who were that way. I've been SO turned-on to people like that; yet out of respect I honored their sexual-orientation.

You sound like a decent and normal guy to me.