Sexuality

Of course I know females sag, too, even before you mentioned it in my The Male Sagging Trend thread. :) I was only talking about males in this case, though, which is why I started the sentence with, "With males..."

I obviously know females can be homosexual as well. I'm just going with males because, for some reason, whenever the word homosexual is brought up, we all instantly think males, as I mentioned previously here. Although typically, these days, gay is used for homosexual males and lesbian is used for homosexual females, but gay and lesbian both stem from homosexual.

 

Gay stems from happy. Just throwing that out there.

And about your post before about those two guys, I wouldn't really say that anything they do is defined as homosexuality, as much as it's defined as just the way they like to dress. There isn't a way that straight people dress as opposed to gay people. It's all just different people preferring to dress different ways.

For example, I have a pair of skinnies in my closet. I used to have a few more, but that was years ago, they're too small now (eternalsadness) and I know at least one guy I went to school with wore skinnies just like I did. Skinny jeans are just a fashion thing, as are piercings, and hair colours, and sadly so is the fashion of letting people see your underwear.

Now I want another pair of skinnies, but I've gotten too fat ;_;

 

Yes, I know, but in these days, it has to do with homosexual males.

I never said it was exclusively a homosexual male only thing, I was just saying that the majority of male people I've seen wear skinny jeans were homosexual. I don't think many heterosexual males wear skinny jeans.

 

I believe that the second I put my dick in another man's butthole that I'm going to burn for the rest of time and beyond after I die because some really old book written by a bunch of people who had no idea where the sun went at night and needed something to sustain order in society may or may not have implied it.

Seriously, you wanna know what the truest thoughts on homosexuality are? I'd hope so because I'm going to show you:

This right here is the most innocent and factual thing I've ever heard or read regarding sexuality. Ever. It's tolerant, but not blind. It's welcoming and passive. Fab job. 10/10. Why's this still a thread?

 

That's an observation, though. An observation can only suggest association, not causation--meaning, you can say that the homosexual males you have met/observed like skinny jeans. You can not say that their sexuality has caused them to make the choice or, more comically, that wearing skinny jeans can make you gay. Even still, that conclusion is a stereotype (and statistically inaccurate to draw, because I doubt your sample size is large enough, it's not a random sample, etc.). It's highly unlikely that the way someone dresses is at all associated with their sexuality. For one, sexuality is such a sliding scale, the terms like "homosexual" or "heterosexual" are never 100% accurate. Further, what goes into someone's wardrobe is really complicated (or not complicated at all, depending on how you look at it).

To offer an example, I've gotten lazy about maintaining it but I keep my hair fairly short for a girl. I wear a lot of plaid button downs. My jeans do sag a bit but that's mostly because I can't find a belt I like (& I buy low rise jeans because I feel uncomfortable in higher rises). I wear sneakers nearly everyday. In short, I dress pretty butch somedays. I dress this way for a variety of reasons, the simplest being that I like plaid and I like the way I look in it. Does that mean I'm a lesbian? No. Do some lesbians dress butch? Of course, and it's okay to observe that, but drawing conclusions from it and stereotyping because of it isn't right.

The idea of a "flamboyant" gay being associated with how they dress is a similarly ignorant statement. Someone can be flamboyantly gay if they walk down the street screaming "I'm gay." Having piercings or dyed hair is not being flamboyantly gay. Certain trends may be popular within gay culture, and gays may have more exposure to 'alt' fashions (though that's not really even a thing), which may make things popular amongst them, but it still isn't an alright conclusion to draw. Let people label themselves, if they so choose.

 

I feel like I've probably offended you or other people, so I wanted to apologize and clarify that how you explained it is what I meant. I just worded my posts wrong. I don't see a lot of males in general, regardless of sexuality, that wear skinny jeans. Actually, that one homosexual classmate of mine and his homosexual friend are, I think, pretty much the only ones I've seen in skinny jeans (and I know for a fact they're homosexual because they said so).

Ever since then, and I don't know why, my brain kind of connected the two together, and I realize that is stereotypical, which I did not intentionally mean in my posts. The last thing I want to do is become a stereotype. I mean, I am all for equal rights -- I'm sure you remember that -- so I think the comments I made kind of make me look bad.

Of course not. There could be two women with the kind of hair Miley Cyrus has currently, for example, and one could be heterosexual while the other could be homosexual.

Right. :) I never said that, I was only asking, and both Patman and Plums answered me and told me what flamboyant meant. Then when I gave the example of those homosexual teenagers that did the heavy piercings and such, I wasn't stating that doing that made people homosexual, I was basically only asking why those two individuals that were indeed homosexual did that. However, like I said, I realize that I worded my posts wrong, and I made it sound like I was saying that people that wear heavy piercings, have weird color hair, etc. are homosexual.

In regards to the trends, this is why I was asking those questions. From personal experience, I've noticed that the homosexuals I've met acted differently than heterosexuals -- and I don't mean to say that there's a way each sexuality acts, because there's not, I just mean that, for example, the ones I've seen did things like wear make-up. However, that's only an observation, and it may very well be that the homosexual individuals I've met do act different, but that's them. Not all homosexuals are like that, obviously.

Anyway, again, I do apologize if I've offended you or anyone else.

 

So, Misty, I wanted to go back to this post from you quite a while ago.

I was doing a little research on why people sag their pants and how it started -- from what I can see, it's still a big debate, because some say it's just a fashion trend that started, while others say it started in prison and was a sign that male prisoners wanted to get intimate with each other -- and came across this article in the search results, where it says that female sexual fluidity is more accepted than male sexual fluidity, which kind of goes back to an earlier comment from me, where I asked why we instantly think males when homosexuality is brought up. Society even says that bisexuality for males doesn't exist, which I completely disagree with.

In any case, is this basically what you meant with your post above?

 

No. I reject the notion that men or women are 'more likely' than the other to do something, firstly. Secondly, as someone who is mostly heterosexual, I can't really speak for the pressures that either group faces. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained in comparing the two.

 

But aren't they basically saying that sexuality is fluid like you said? I'm probably misunderstanding, though.

 

The article is problematic to me because it is, first of all, still supporting the black and white notion of "straight or gay," rather than accurately representing sexuality as a spectrum. It notes the development in our generation of a less label-conscious outlook on sexuality, but neither speaks in favor of it nor renounces it. Which, to be fair, it is reporting on a study, but imo that's news reporting, not journalism. The title poses a question that the author does not answer, or even attempt to answer. But that's a different story for a different time.

More seriously, though, it's mistaking fluidity for curiosity. Curiosity is a well-taken point in discussing sexuality, but it's once again failing to make any kind of point that rejects society's strict dichotomy on sexuality.

It's worth noting, also, that it seems a little homophobic to me in places? But that could just be me. It seems like it's trying to pat straight men on the back and say "there there, it's okay to look at dicks, you're not gay!" Straight men finding the idea of being gay, or even having an interest in other men, insulting or scary implies that there is, theoretically, something wrong with being gay. And once again, that's due to the sloppy writing in the article--it presents a lot of contrasting viewpoints and doesn't take a stance.

 

Oh-ho, wow. I happen to be doing an English paper on stereotypes and I can see this sort of got into that portion of things, even if momentarily.

Thoughts in a nutshell:

• People stereotype because they hate to lack information regarding subjects. Therefore they take into account that the moon has only ten percent of earth's gravitational force while never having been to the moon themselves.
• People use stereotypes when there is a lack of information or understanding. My prime example and basic topic for the paper is bronies. Bronies are stereotyped because people don't understand why bronies exist (lack of information or understanding).

As mentioned by DigitalAtlas above, or implied I suppose, people (not all but a lot) take information from a book written well before their great grandfather's great grandfather's time and they believe in it wholeheartedly; lest they find a contradiction through personal experience in which case a portion of information gets rewritten. So it begs the question, why are we all so gullible? Have you ever thought about how hard it is to just say "I don't know" to someone? If you haven't you probably make your own ideals and beliefs as opposed to using some based off of other (potentially unreliable) information. For a lot of people it is difficult to simply say that you don't know anything about the matter at hand. It's for that reason that we take information we've picked up before relating to a potentially similar situation or matter and use it to fill in the holes.

I know the old cliche "men are the only ones who don't admit when they're wrong" thing, or maybe that was just directions (not sure), but everyone does it. I actually find myself baffled as to why it's so difficult but it is. Maybe it's just fear of persecution, the thought of being judged, that makes you want to subconsciously fill in holes that you don't have the information to. Ironically a lot of the time that only makes us out to look like fools in the end. Don't get me wrong, there is a difference between deductive reasoning and just tossing up dirt. Deductive reasoning requires you to stop and think about an issue or situation in hopes of using what you know along with logic and reason to figure out a solution that fits. Anyone can say that being *insert race, religion, sex appeal* will lead you to a life of damnation because they read it in a book. Truth is that you can't really know that. I can say that there is a boy with a wand who fights an evil wizard with his friends and saves the world because I read it in a book, does that make it true?

They say ignorance is bliss and I'm sure it is. Constant use of the brain is tiring and often leaves you feeling drained. How blissful it might be to be in a state of constant thoughtlessness. I'm envious of such people.

I'm sorry but I just have to ...

I'm gonna go with 'reassuring men of their heterosexuality' for 500 please!

I have to agree with Misty on the article. It does appear to be reassuring 'straight' men that they are 'straight'. While it may contain what looks like some effort, it could have been given a little more. It does kind of fluctuate between sides and stays 'neutral' if you'd call it that.

I also agree that not everything is black and white, I mean we have 3D television now ... 3D!!! There are many ... many ... many shades of grey in this world along with a full spectrum of colors. If anything I'd have to say I lean straight, if we're going by 'modern' terms. At least the article says that, or implies from what I took of it, bisexual isn't good enough anymore. I do agree for one reason only and that's people almost instantly think 'homosexual' when hearing the word 'bisexual'. I lean straight infers that I prefer women but still have that possibility to like men.

Basically, people are always going to be filling in holes about stuff they don't know. If we start to give out information to disprove and replace the already gathered information there may be a chance to abolish inaccurate beliefs or stereotypes. In thirty years homosexuality may, and will more than likely, be common and accepted.

Final thoughts:
Love the life you live.
Live the life you love.
Love. Live. Life.

 

So when do you guys think we'll get to a point where sexuality is just another thing in the world?

You guys hear about how ordinary people and celebrities that are homosexual or bisexual "come out of the closet" and announce they're homosexual or bisexual, but yet the heterosexuals never announce that they're heterosexual. This, I believe, is because of the stereotype view humans have on things.

When will people have to stop announcing their sexuality if it's something other than heterosexual and, you know, just be accepted? For example, if a male comes home one day and introduces his boyfriend or a female comes home one day and introduces her girlfriend, it should be just like if a male came home and introduced his girlfriend or a female came home and introduced her boyfriend -- no awkward questions or hate from the family.

 

This is why I don't care whether or not people know I'm Bisexual, and while I'm not big on the whole LGBT pride thing (I admire and respect it a lot, but it's just not my thing). You don't see heterosexual people announcing that they're straight out in the streets, so why should non-heterosexuals feel the need to prove that they're just like everyone else? That they're normal too? That's a problem with our society. Some people see LGBT as just "different", but the reality is that we're just like everyone else.
I don't see my sexuality as something to flaunt, and I'm very happy with who I am. How I go about it, if I want someone to know, I just drop subtle hints. If they catch on, that's cool, and if not then whatever.

But that's just how I go about it, and my opinion on the matter. People can do whatever they want and I'll respect them for it, as long as it doesn't hurt them or other people.

 

I feel like you're asking two different things here, but that's probably just how I'm reading, lol.

This doesn't really sound so much like it's about acceptance to me as it is assumptions. In general, people have a tendency to assume that another person, especially one they are attracted to, is the same sexual orientation as they are (generally speaking, heterosexual). While it is a stereotype, heterosexual people thinking another person is that same orientation can be traced back just to biology -- typically, we aim to reproduce and our attraction towards others, in the most basic sense, is looking for someone who will yield some good offspring.

Obviously this isn't true, as there are those people who don't have an active interest in sex or reproduction or the other sex. But I believe it's that base biological way of thinking that has shaped modern perceptions into the general notion that other people around us are "heterosexual until proven otherwise". However, I also think a similar mindset of "yes this person I am attracted to is clearly my sexual orientation as well". A homosexual, for example, may find someone they are attracted to and assume that that person is also homosexual, because of their attraction to them.

To answer what I assume to be your main question though,

acceptance is getting better as people begin to become more aware of all these different orientations and such, and I believe it will continue to gradually get better. Where our parents' generation may not have been as accepting of different orientations, our generation will be more, and the generation after that will be even more so. This is my problem with movements in general, but while you should fight as hard as you can to change things, you should not expect the world to radically shift in an instant. Change is gradual, and it may take years before you start to really see results. The world will not be free of misandry, misogyny, racism, poverty, ****-shaming or any of that tomorrow. It takes time for people to learn and to accept these things, and it takes even longer depending on who/what you're trying to change.

I really do believe that things will someday get better, but there's no way for me to put a time stamp on it. It may be a few years, a few decades, or even a few generations; but I think we're slowly changing for the better.

 

Pretty much one. I was just reinstating -- if that's the right word to use -- what I said in my first paragraph.

I'll admit that I'm one of those that assumes people to be heterosexual until proven otherwise, but I don't go around to people and ask, "Are you heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual?" The only time I would ask would be if I'm conversing with a good friend or a group of good friends and we're just shooting the ****. However, it sounds as if you're saying that, compared to the other stereotypical things, such as saying homosexuals dress differently, assumption is the least bad thing in stereotyping.

In regard to reproducing, this is actually how a friend of mine, who's 16 and knows a lot about this stuff, feels. He is not against homosexuals and homosexuality or bisexuals and bisexuality at all (basically how I feel), but he believes that humans were meant to reproduce, which can't be done if it's not a male and a female. This is kind of off topic in terms of what I'm replying to, but this is the reason why he believes when you're born, you have no sexuality. Instead, your sexuality develops based on childhood experiences. For example, and I can't remember exactly what it was he said (next time he hangs out, I'll ask and post an update), you could be shy around girls, so you get more "attached" to guys, which eventually turns romantic and possibly sexual. In his case, he's heterosexual because his father really despises people of a different sexuality, so those are the experiences he grew up with.

 

It' s not a bad thing. I wouldn' t even call it stereotyping, it' s inductive reasoning. Non-heterosexuals just happen to be a minority. Look, I' m gonna ask you to immagine how my dad looks like. Got it ? Now let me ask you ...

Spoiler

Was he a dwarf ? Was he stuck in a wheelchair ?

As imperfect a tool as it is, pragmatically we have to rely on inductive reasoning all the time in our daily lives, it cuts corners and saves time. If we guessed wrong then just say so, it' s that simple.

 

Starting phrases like this always remind me of this:


In an Ideal world, there would be no need for someone "get out of the closet" because society would not force anyone be, anything that they are not. We (of course) do not live in such world. We live in a world where most of homossexual (not to mention trans, bi, and travestis) live in fear, they are bullied, they are hated towards, not acepted by their own parents, and this will probably continue as statisticaly they will "always be 10% of the population", they are "doomed" to be a minority, and not only that one that most people can't even relate to because every other person will inheritably be "normaly attracted to the oposite sex, not even figuring out how could some one chose to be like that" (Like this was a choice).

So it helps all the little homossexual Jims out there to know that their heroes (celebrities) are gay like him, if this loved person is gay and it is okay, maybe it is okay for him being gay as well.

Violence towards minorities are always bigger than against the "major population" (even when the "major" isn't really more in numbers, but in saying what is normal and what it is not).

Can you live telling, that if we don't speak about racism/sexism/homofobia it will eventually desapear? Sure, many people do it like Morgan Freeman (and I don't think he is a racist for chosing this approach).

Yet you should understand , why people try to make a "safer world" for others come out as well, It may be not the best way, but it has its merits and it points out that this hate exists even when people try to hide it.

Basicaly let people do what they want to do, if they are not hurting anyone they are free to pursuit happines, and being accepted is a part of being happy because seldom most people can be happy alone.

----

About reproduction... sure, but the world is already crowded, do we need more people? Even if we did, why would you force other people to reproduce? Why do you care if they reproduce or not? Priests do not reproduce, some people can't reproduce, and some straight couple chose not to have children.

The problem of the world is that they care to much about other peoples lives... you are against gay marriage? Don't get married with someone of your gender. You're against abortion? Don't have one... why do you care how the others live? It seems to me that people feel that if those things become accepted they will be forced to do it because this is the "norm" now. You don't need, so rest assured and let other people live like they want.

 

Pretty much took the words from my mouth on this one.

From anyone's point of view, my sexuality shouldn't matter even a little bit. There is no circumstance where my sexuality is of any consequence to anyone.

I don't believe there is any behavior that is associated with sexuality. Honestly, I don't even think that sexuality is a real thing that actually exists. Sexuality is, in many cases so fluid and so complicated that it's impossible to put a label on it. I've seen so many people go from "Straight", to "Bisexual," to "Pansexual," to "Gay," and back to "Straight", over and over again. The reality is that they were none of those things! THEY ARE A PERSON. "Sexuality" is completely inconsequential.

I believe the labels need to be torn down, and forgotten. Nobody is "Straight". Nobody is "Gay". Nobody is "Bisexual," etc. People are people, and we acknowledge and accept that different people have different attractions.

It's an ideal situation of course, but still what I strive for and a world I really hope I'll see someday.

 

This is exactly why I dislike labels. I understand the need to identify people as something, but it usually brings along stereotypes and prejudices. I really dislike how behavior is associated with sexuality, as in acting "straight" or "gay". I've actually had people say to me that I'm not really bisexual because I don't act like one. I didn't even realize that, according to my sexuality, there were rules and regulations on how I should act!
In the end, it's just preferences. You like what you like, and you act how you want, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else. Sexuality is way too broad of a spectrum to pin down.
If it was up to me, I would just choose not to use labels at all. But people always want to know what I am so I'm just using bisexual for now. It's the closest thing, I suppose.

But in the end I'm just restating what you said. I agree with you.

 

@Plums has given me the green flag to post this article, provided I don't publicly post a link to the source site. The site is a purely educational site on male masturbation, but because there are also sections for techniques and whatnot, it oversteps KH-Vids' boundaries a bit. However, if you are interested in seeing what the site is, feel free to contact me privately via a personal conversation or on Skype (my Skype ID is on my profile).

Anyway, this is an article I found on homosexuality and wanted to see what you guys thought. Also, like me and many others, the author is all for equal rights -- just thought I'd put that out there.

Then a reader, inspired by the letter of the author above, responded to that letter. However, one of the sentences is kind of on the border, so if you're interested, again, contact me privately.