Author Topic: Labelling our Sexuality  (Read 1323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Labelling our Sexuality
« on: December 08, 2017, 06:10:14 am »
Referencing this article, however it's got a lot of explicit GBLT sex descriptions that aren't to everyone's taste.  You don't need to read the article to discuss:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evazgj/its-time-to-stop-labeling-our-sexuality

I'm wondering about the reasons for labelling and grouping people at all, and whether it's useful anymore.

At the outset of human language, there would have been ways to identify humans who were outsiders, and then as language and civilizations evolved there would have been ways to identify different outsider tribes, and different attributes of people within them.

All of this happened within a framework of subjective and reactive judgements on what human groups were.  So our words for tribes, peoples, and other groups evolved in a period where we were terrible at making assessments about such groups and are tied to that habit.

So why use them ?

They help by providing a mental shorthand to jump to conclusions about people, if that is indeed help.  They describe the name of the container you are putting them in but really don't say anything else about them.  That means that the context of grouping people makes more sense if there is a clear membership within such a group, and a clear context for the group within the conversation.

So, 'bad' use of grouping: Religious right are idiots
'good' use of grouping: 'The association of Southern Baptist preachers has voted to officially support Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama election'

The second use is better because there's clear membership, the context is direct and clear.  You can now make a statement about the 2nd group without engaging in cultural noise-making.  You can now discuss significance, context and so on...

AI is soon going to be racist for us by proxy, except they will find signifiers that we could never perceive.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Agree Agree x 1 View List

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2017, 08:33:51 am »
I read the article, it was interesting.  My granddaughter referred to herself as pansexual because "it is the person that matters, not their gender".  She is still pretty young so it may be part of exploration; on the other hand, maybe not.  Anyway, I am looking.forward to seeing how she develops this type of universal acceptance. 

Perhaps people like her and Chance will be the new normal, and maybe there is hope that grouping people based on single attribute will really become a thing of the past.  I read, many years ago, that in order to murder or enslave people either individually or as a group, the first step had to be labelling them as "less than human" in some way and therefore not deserving of the same consideration as other humans.  Once a label is defined, and you can slap it on anyone based on a single attribute (skin color, origin, religion, sexual orientation) and effectively remove their humanity.  This clears the way for an individual to kill that person, for an army to wage war against of bunch of those people, or for a leader to practice genocide against a subset of their own citizens.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 09:41:17 am »
There was a piece of dialogue in "Spook Country" by William Gibson that sometimes comes to mind when I think of this stuff.  Someone observes that one of the minor characters, Odette, is really into their friend Heidi, and asks whether Odette is gay. The main character replies that she doesn't think so and adds that she doesn't think being attracted to Heidi isn't a good indicator of someone being a lesbian.  Asked to explain, she says:

"Heidi is sort of a gender preference unto herself for some people. And lots of them are male."

That sort of captures how I feel. I feel quite drawn to some people for reasons I can't really put into words. It's very much an "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing.

I think they are now up to 14 or 30 or 73 "gender descriptors" on Facebook. The column seems to suggest that less labels, not more, is the way to go. I think so as well.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2017, 10:17:50 am »
I think the purpose of labels at this point is an intermediate step towards the label-less society that you envision. People are stuck believing in gender-identity, gender-expression, and sexuality binaries, when binary thinking about these things is relatively new in the history of humanity (ie, women were imperfect male forms). In order to break the binary, those who do not fit the binary model need to stand out and be heard. This causes people who are set in their ways to resist recognizing what's always been there. It makes them uncomfortable because there's little to no language for gradients of sexuality and gender. Without language for these gradients, it's very difficult to really think about these things. Over time those who resist recognizing these gradients will come to accept it because it's a reality. When that happens, we may end up having the label-less society that you seek because most people will be accepting that gender-identity, gender-expression, and sexuality are not binaries (i.e., if not A then B--if not straight, then gay; if not man, then woman; if not masculine, then feminine).

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 10:20:25 am »
I think the purpose of labels at this point is an intermediate step towards the label-less society that you envision.

I think the above comment is illogical. Your assumption people kill to learn not how to kill is an irrational projection as to what you think are the thoughts of a killer.

People use labels to create order from chaos. As long as they feel there is chaos they will use labels.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201210/the-pesky-persistence-labels
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2017, 10:58:31 am »
I think gender & sexuality stereotypes and binary thinking etc like those in the article are a much bigger problem than the actual labels themselves. I think labels can be a big problem if they used to reinforce rigid stereotypes like what it is to be "a man", but labels can be useful to let people know our preferences.  ie: If you're a gay man it can be useful to use that label so that other gay men know that you could a possible mate and also that hetero women would be wasting their time etc
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2017, 11:10:34 am »

...People are stuck believing in gender-identity, gender-expression, and sexuality binaries, when binary thinking about these things is relatively new in the history of humanity (ie, women were imperfect male forms). In order to break the binary, those who do not fit the binary model need to stand out and be heard. This causes people who are set in their ways to resist recognizing what's always been there. It makes them uncomfortable because there's little to no language for gradients of sexuality and gender. Without language for these gradients, it's very difficult to really think about these things. Over time those who resist recognizing these gradients will come to accept it because it's a reality. When that happens, we may end up having the label-less society that you seek because most people will be accepting that gender-identity, gender-expression, and sexuality are not binaries (i.e., if not A then B--if not straight, then gay; if not man, then woman; if not masculine, then feminine).


First off a binary system is Number system that uses only two values (0,1; on, off) to represent codes and data. Its used in mathematics as.a system of counting or measurement whose units are powers of two.

It has been used to describe people who think in all or nothing terms i.e., YES or NO but not maybe.

When defining gender the assumption it is a binary system is erroneous.

Science does not define gender as it does values in mathematics or star systems or when constructing computer programs.

It uses biological and physiological characteristics  "'gender'  and that sense it can refer to  inherent physical and genetic characteristics  or socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

In fact someone can be born a hermaphrodite with both sets of sexual organs.

Yes biologically nature as a general rule with homo sapiens only created two genders not three or four. In some species on our planet life forms procreate without gender differentation.

There has always been dialogue as whether onces biological or physical birth status alone defines their gender.

As certain NOT all societies of homo sapiens have evolved social constructs moved from assuming gender role is based only on the genitilia you were born with to individual choice as to how to use that genitilia and with who.

Biologically all life forms on the planet earth have a certain percentage of homosexuals and this is explained as a genetic fail safe like disease to prevent over population. The fact that its been identified in all life forms that reproduce suggests this.

Not withstanding that across the board existence, in certain societies, religion, culture, life experience has shaped peoples' beliefs as to what constitutes "normal" or "socially acceptable" sexual behaviour. In that sense its fluid and ever changing as morality constantly changes which determines what is socially acceptable.

In today's Western societies and their legal systems, consensual sex between people of majority age is considered legal. In psychological terms, consensual sex between people where there is no violence, one side is not exploiting the other with a power advantage, is considered healthy. The definition of homosexual as being "abnormal" or a psychiatric disease has been removed. In the DSV Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual sexual behaviours are diagnosed in a manner that describes a cluster or constellation or list of specific behaviours and where the majority of those behaviours are symptomized or expressed or acted out or felt in such a way as to predominant the individual's behaviour, its then given a classification.

That classification begins and ends at an individual level. Certain classifications of sexual disorders or conditions are considered dangerous or illegal. We define non consensual sex as the criminal act of sexual assault. Sex with minors is defined as **** (pre-pubic) or hebephile (persons starting or in puberty stages or teens).

The laws in Canada also define statutory sexual assault if an adult engages in sex with a minor, and then makes exeptions to that where there is no large age difference in specific cases.

None of the above is binary. Its based on a scale of relativity.

There is no gradient formula or gradient descent used as a first-order iterative optimization algorithm for finding the minimum of specific sexual behaviour or gender identification using social constructs.  It also certainly is not done when examining physical or genetic features of gender.

Sexology, psychology are social sciences and by that very inherent nature creates a relativity scale to examine and characterize behaviour and when possible characterize it using objective criteria.

Psychiaty is more complex overlapping with neurology. Today the line or distinction between organic brain diseases (neurology) and functional mental illnesses (psychiatry) is getting thinner and thinner as pstychiatry works along with neurology to discover chemicals within the brain and physical brain structures that can manifest psychiatric symptoms.

So for example brain rumours, brain injuries, schizophrenia, bi-polar and other mood disorders (depression) now are all being understood not just in demonstrated behaviour but chemical imbalances or brain lesions or damage or structural anomolies. It has nothing to do with a binary system. The brain is not mapped the way say astrologers map the skies.

The structure of the brain is limited by its physical components, mapping the stars requires a leap of faith through patterns of past patterns to predict future ones.

In fact psychiatry and neurology are reactive not speculative. They deal with the hear and now and what can be measured through whenever possible brain tissue. Psychiatry doesn't speculate on what behaviour humans might manifest 100 or 1000 years from now.

Evolutionists might speculate on how the body will change and evolve not neurologists and psychiatrists who are in the present tense asking how do we treat specific symptoms that may manifest with certain behaviour or other physical displays including skin rashes, vomiting, head-aches, etc.

Gradient descent is used in science to find a local minimum of a function and so in that process one takes steps proportional to the negative of the gradient of the function at the current point.

That is not done and can not be done when analyzing human behaviour and/or physical structure of the human body.

Local minimum function is determined by disecting the portion of body analyzed and engaging in mechanics, understanding its mechanical processes, its cause and effect, how the brain sends a signal through nerves to certain muscles and what interferes with that whether it be nerve structure damage, neurotransmission irregularities, etc.

In terms of defining sexual behaviour, that needs to be differentiated from the word sexuality because its often used interchangeably and leads to confusion. Sexuality is a collective word for BOTH physical characteristics of the genders and social constructs as to how people express sexual drive.

When someone says I am born a man but feel like a woman that can create an obvious dissonance between their physical reality (the genitilia and bodies  they are born with) and subjective (individual and social construct) reality.

The latter deals with feelings. Those feelings might be able to be defined because of physical anomalies detected in the brain or other physical parts of the body, or may not exist at all physically.

For example with hermaphordites born with a large clitoris and small ****, the decision to cut the **** off and focus on the person being a woman may not address other hormonal factors that develop as the body ages to lead the person to feel male although they only have a clitoris.

Some people born in male bodies who feel women and vice versa can be explained by hormonal imbalances. We now know estogen and testosterone are two of many components that can influence or dictate sex drive.

What we also know with **** and hebephiles is you can castrate them, i.e., remove their genitals but their sex drive attraction still remains.

We now know through mri's that certain parts of the brain lighten up when someone is sexually aroused. We now know if you damage certain parts of the brain it can turn people asexual or cause sexual overdrive or sexual mania, i.e., nymphomania.

We now know for example that **** might increase blood flow to a **** but if a man has low levels of certain hormones he may still not feel sexually aroused. We know this two with women and say drugs like estrogen.

Over the thousands of years certain plants and herbs were observed to increase sexual feelings but not necessarily blood flow to the clitoris or ****.

Where the body ends and our emotions and psyche begin is not an exact science. Our minds, emotions and body are three parts of the equation when defining any kind of sexual construct whether it be with behaviour of functioning or reproduction.

Religions at one point taught sex should not be enjoyed and only be used for reproduction. Some people still believe that and associate sex as being "dirty" as its associated with the same body parts discharging feces and urine and can have distinct odours or fluid characteristics.

What should be said is sexuality is not binary and never has been. Its complex and will always be complex and like any study involving life forms, it will vary and can not be defined using fixed close ended logorthyms.

What has been proven is that if a human represses their sexual feelings, this repression of those feelings will cause symptoms that will persist until the sexual feelings can be expressed. Sexual feelings don;t go away, they collect until the point where they become so large they burst out against the person's will. You can only repress a feeling for so long before it has to rise and emit.

Pyromaniacs are a kind of individual who get sexual gratification through fire. They are most often unable to have sex physically due to psycholocial issues so they rechannel the drive through making fires and no they are not aware of this root cause anymore than a serial killer or sexual predator truly understands why they do what they do. Sexual drive is not necessarily predictable or logical when it is expressed and when it is expressed negatively it can be done in an infinite number of ways.



You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2017, 05:39:17 am »
Binary actually only exists in the human mind, as does mathematics.  It's perfection that becomes less perfect once it leaves the mind of an individual.  Ideas that are 'perfectly' logical, like, 1+1=2 constitute a universal human perception, but not necessarily an actual physical truth that exists in the universe.

What is there "one" of in the universe ?  Maybe a human being ?

Sexuality has been binary in some human cultures, and that perception has been universal within that culture.  But when someone challenges it, the common foundation for truth is threatened and a new one has to be established.

This is where we are today with gender in western society, and in general with truth in western society IMO.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2017, 10:33:43 pm »
So I was reading this article about US evangelical Christians who are becoming uncomfortable with the label "evangelical" in the era of Trump and Roy Moore. And as it started discussing the problems with labels, it started seeming relevant to this thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/after-trump-and-moore-some-evangelicals-are-finding-their-own-label-too-toxic-to-use/2017/12/14/b034034c-e020-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?tid=sm_rd&utm_term=.8706cdd7d105

Toward the middle of the article they start picking apart the label, and what it means, and why some people who fit the agreed-on meaning don't describe themselves as such:
Quote
the four-part definition of evangelical faith, articulated by historian David Bebbington: obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority, belief in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as the source of salvation, the necessity of a personal “born-again” conversion experience, and work to spread the Gospel. ... in practice, many evangelicals don’t fully embrace those four tenets, and many people who do would never call themselves evangelical. The differences often come down to cultural factors for self-described evangelicals — such as personal piety or beliefs on sexuality. Or race, for black Christians who share those fourfold beliefs but often don’t use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves because of its historical and modern association with racism and the Republican Party.

Quote
In the past, “evangelical” was a useful marker of theological and cultural similarities across denominations — a word providing something broader than “Southern Baptist” but more specific than “Christian.”
...
“Shorthands have always been helpful,” said Ed Stetzer, the executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton, in Illinois. “The question is, ‘Do I want to be affiliated with that?’ when terms have been redefined, either when it’s been hijacked or misunderstood.”

"Shorthands have always been helpful."

In some thread I had talked about presenting a mostly feminine appearance to the world and preferring women who do the same as opposed to women who adopt more masculine cues. "Oh, these are Lipstick Lesbians, and those are Diesel Dykes", Argus replied.     Which, I guess, kind of give you a mental picture. But they're both stereotypes and neither really applies to any real person I've met.

 Shorthands are helpful, until they start to convey information that isn't intended.

Quote
Now students are rethinking how they identify. “Am I part of a movement that identifies with things I actually think are personally and theologically repellent to me?” he hears them asking. “If somehow I’ve gotten caught up in a movement like that . . . I could try to endlessly unpack it, or I could just abandon it.”

For his part, he thinks the label still has value, as he tries to sum up the theology that people from many different denominations who gather on Fuller’s campus have in common.

“What word do you put in its place? There’s no adequate or obviously adequate word to do that,” he said. “I’m ‘an orthodox Christian who cares deeply about being a follower of Jesus and wants to live with an open posture of engagement with culture.’ That’s not as tidy as simply saying, ‘evangelical.’ ”

 ...and here we find people struggling with their labels.   "If everybody thinks evangelical means Religious Right, and I'm not Religious Right, am I still an evangelical?"  Other groups go through this sort of thing as well.   The label "feminist", for example, has become very confusing. I used to think I'm a feminist, but I'm not sure anymore, as the label seems to have expanded to include some rather radical ideas that I'm not a fan of.  If you don't think biologically male people should share the shower and dressing room with women, can you still be a feminist? There seems to be differing ideas on that.  And so on.    If I have power-tools and men's shirts, but still wear long hair and lipstick, am I a diesel-dyke or a lipstick lesbian?  That one, to me, doesn't matter. It's not like there's a membership card.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2017, 05:44:21 am »
I'm going to start asking about group definitions more.  As per my OP there are ways to use them that are more effective than others.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2017, 08:00:09 am »
I'm suprasexual.  That means I have 14 dicks and want to stick them in all of you.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Sad Sad x 1 View List

Offline Goddess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2017, 04:28:56 pm »
At the beginning of his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" Richard Dawkins explained that the Platonic idea of perfect forms, had inhibited acceptance of the idea of evolution and common descent. Western culture is so stuck on the idea that categories are fixed by their ideal forms, that the suggestion that all life is related and there are no non-arbitrary lines to be drawn anywhere was simply unthinkable for most people.

I think maybe all labels are arbitrary.  Every attempt to classify living things is flawed and tentative because every definition is subject to being contradicted by exceptions.

We need to get past the idea that we are discovering lines where there are none. We need to be fully aware that we are drawing our own lines.

Because then instead of asking the stupid question: does this line truthfully belong here? We'll ask the much better question: is it even useful to draw a line here or not?



"A religion without a Goddess is half-way to atheism."

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2017, 06:02:50 pm »
Because then instead of asking the stupid question: does this line truthfully belong here? We'll ask the much better question: is it even useful to draw a line here or not?
When it comes to biological sex there is a clear line determined by biology. There existence of rare mutations do not negate that fact (e.g. humans have 5 fingers on each hand - this is a biological fact that is not negated by the fact that some people have mutations and are born with 6). Gender roles, OTOH, are arbitrary social constructs. If there were no differentiated gender roles then the concept of 'transgender' can and should disappear.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 06:06:27 pm by TimG »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2017, 09:13:48 am »
I defer to both the comments of Tim G and Godess. Biologically as Tim stated and its a no brainer for reproduction purposes unless you are one of those life forms with both genders that can reproduce which I believe there may be some, we homo sapiens need a female and a male to reproduce, so biologically for reproduction purposes we can't get around the salami and bagel so to speak if I may use Jewish deli references so as not to offend anyone but the anti Zionists.

In regards to the social constructs as to sexual behaviour Like Godess said it can become very subjective and I say to the point of nonsense and self-indulgent narcissism sometimes in my personal opinion with some.  I like many believe what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not a state matter. Sexuality for me becomes a state matter if it deals with exploitation of the young, violence, criminal behaviour.

However personally I worry about children. I think we have lowered the age of sexual awareness too far. We bombard them with sexual messages I feel at two young an age to sell them crap. We have too many perverted adults trying to take advantage of sexual confusion in morality to justify pedophilia and hebephilia and other acts of power imbalanced sex. Its a confusing era. Its an era of moral value confusion and uncertainty.

I think sometimes we need to get back to common sense. Power imbalances in s x relationships, sex mixed with violence, sex that exploits the vulnerable that is where we should be concerned. There is a direct link between the sex trade and pornography industry and organized crime and terrorist syndicates. There are also disturbing networks of **** I'm government and business circles. Those kinds of things give me the chills.

That said I personally believe sexuality should be an intimate and private matter myself unless you want to go around spreading diseases, raping people, hurting and molesting people.

You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Labelling our Sexuality
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2017, 11:55:17 am »
I'm suprasexual.  That means I have 14 dicks and want to stick them in all of you.

It must take you a lot of time to masturbate...
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum