Terminology

[none2_none2]

I'm believe that boy-liking vs girl-liking is just a different way of slicing humanity that has its own set of confusions.

What is a boy-liking person? Is it someone attracted to male gonads, or someone emotionally attracted to males? If it is the former, then you will insult many guys who get on this forum and insist that they really aren't at all like gay men because other than penises, they don't care for men physically or emotionally. If it is the latter, then aren't we neutering sexuality?

Though I believe that humans put way to much emphasis on gender, I'm not blind. I know that body parts are a bit different. The body parts we have AND the parts that come with whom we are attracted to affect our sexuality. For example, I've known plenty of st8 gals who admire guys' buns. I do too, but part of my appreciation is most likely a lot different than the straight woman's.

Though one can argue that gay men and lesbians don't have a lot in common because of the gender of their attraction, I think we do. Most societies expect men to settle down with women and visa versa and live happily ever after. Gay men and lesbians go against that very strong tide. Many times I have felt more affinity with lesbians for that very reason.

I guess what I'm saying gets back to some other thoughts I've had in the past. Why not just say we are all just sexual beings? Why do we have to slice/dice ourselves and others into this label or that label? Whether the label is the old gay/str8/bi label or a new boy-like/girl-like/misc-like label, they are STILL labels.

Don't we need to take the time to get to know that individual for all their uniqueness as well as comonality? Rather than claim to understand someone based on the labels we wish to stick on them, get to know them.

My height may describe the angle at which I see the world. My race may help to understand how I deal with sunlight or darkness. My body thickness may help explain how I deal with hot and cold. My religious affiliation may describe how I form my world view and a belief in an afterlife. The gender of the person I love may explain the mechanics of what I do in bed. However, we are are all more than the sum of our parts. If you cannot see a person except through the labels you stick on them, then you really don't want to get to know that individual.

 

[Raimondin]

Ah, the power of words depends from whose mouth it's coming from. But something has to be laid down to describe who we are. "Gay" and "Straight" have been around a long time and have a done a fairly good job, especially as simple one syllable words.

On a similar vein, I've never liked the term "lover" to describe your SO. I've always prefered simply "boyfriend." "Lover" to me sounds like somebody you paid services for, or a one-night stand. Everybody's different...

 

[KABUKISTAR]

I'm believe that boy-liking vs girl-liking is just a different way of slicing humanity that has its own set of confusions.

What is a boy-liking person? Is it someone attracted to male gonads, or someone emotionally attracted to males? If it is the former, then you will insult many guys who get on this forum and insist that they really aren't at all like gay men because other than penises, they don't care for men physically or emotionally. If it is the latter, then aren't we neutering sexuality?

Just like the current sexuality phrases, it doesn't matter what about men/women you're attracted to; all that matters is that you are.

Though one can argue that gay men and lesbians don't have a lot in common because of the gender of their attraction, I think we do. Most societies expect men to settle down with women and visa versa and live happily ever after. Gay men and lesbians go against that very strong tide. Many times I have felt more affinity with lesbians for that very reason.

That's not really a necessary similarity; it's a contingent one created by society's unreasonable expectations about sexuality. And there's no need to base how we talk and think off of notions created from heterosexism.

I guess what I'm saying gets back to some other thoughts I've had in the past. Why not just say we are all just sexual beings? Why do we have to slice/dice ourselves and others into this label or that label? Whether the label is the old gay/str8/bi label or a new boy-like/girl-like/misc-like label, they are STILL labels.

Don't we need to take the time to get to know that individual for all their uniqueness as well as comonality? Rather than claim to understand someone based on the labels we wish to stick on them, get to know them.

My height may describe the angle at which I see the world. My race may help to understand how I deal with sunlight or darkness. My body thickness may help explain how I deal with hot and cold. My religious affiliation may describe how I form my world view and a belief in an afterlife. The gender of the person I love may explain the mechanics of what I do in bed. However, we are are all more than the sum of our parts. If you cannot see a person except through the labels you stick on them, then you really don't want to get to know that individual.

[rant]
You know, "sexual being" is a label, too. For that matter, so is "person" and "individual." You're right; you really shouldn't see someone just through labels you apply to them, but that doesn't mean labels are inherently bad. "Label" has become somewhat of a bad word, lately, but they're really bad.

I mean... they're just a language tool, to describe people and things.
Allow me to demonstrate, by applying some labels to myself: I'm a human, I'm left-handed, I'm brown-eyed, I'm a college student, I'm a cellist.

There we go, 5 labels. Did I negate myself by listing them? Did I make myself less of an individual by labeling myself? Did I reduce who I am down to just those 5 labels and nothing else? Of course not. I just used some convenient, pre-made terms to describe small parts of who I am. Labeling isn't such a big deal.

[/rant]

 

[KokopelliRises]

I think that we cannot get rid of labels, no matter how hard we try. We just get to pick which labels we use to describe ourselves. That's the real power in the situation. I choose to call myself bisexual, because I like both boys and girls. I choose to describe myself as short even though I am almost average height. I choose to call myself curvy because I am overweight. These are all choices that I made about myself. If you prefer to be called gay, lesbian, or straight, more power to you. If you prefer to be called bisexual, girl-liking, or boy-liking, it doesn't matter. Choose your own terms, most people will be willing to accept how you describe yourself. If they don't, the only thing that is really important is how you feel about yourself, how you choose to describe yourself in your mind.

 

[Etoile]

Are you a boy-liking person, etoile, or a girl-liking person?

I am a queer dyke, my dear. You may interpret that however you like.

 

[KABUKISTAR]

I'm guessing girl-liking, as most people who describe themselves as "dyke" often are.

 

[playwithlezli]

You know, "sexual being" is a label, too. For that matter, so is "person" and "individual." You're right; you really shouldn't see someone just through labels you apply to them, but that doesn't mean labels are inherently bad. "Label" has become somewhat of a bad word, lately, but they're really bad.

I mean... they're just a language tool, to describe people and things.
Allow me to demonstrate, by applying some labels to myself: I'm a human, I'm left-handed, I'm brown-eyed, I'm a college student, I'm a cellist.

There we go, 5 labels. Did I negate myself by listing them? Did I make myself less of an individual by labeling myself? Did I reduce who I am down to just those 5 labels and nothing else? Of course not. I just used some convenient, pre-made terms to describe small parts of who I am. Labeling isn't such a big deal.

[/rant]

I had a very similar conversation with my girlfriend, back when she was still struggling with coming out. She didn't see the need to use labels like lesbian, homosexual etc. When I asked her if she called herself a mom, a woman, a Ukrainian, she said of course, she was all of those things. For her it was a way of avoiding the reality of her situation. We then talked about everything having labels, like the big, white rectangle in the kitchen that kept food cold, how much simpler it was to call it a fridge. Then even if it was a different size or colour or in another location, we still had a simple way to describe it, shorthand so to speak.

 

[Etoile]

I'm guessing girl-liking, as most people who describe themselves as "dyke" often are.

Well, yes. You have got that part of it right. But what about the queer part? I say "queer dyke" instead of "dyke" for a reason. I'm not trying to play a guessing game, I'm just pointing out that a person doesn't have to be simply boy-liking or girl-liking...there are many diverse facets to attraction and orientation.

 

[naughtyinsilk]

I am a queer dyke, my dear.

More importantly you are friendly , intelligent and helpful, someone your partner can be very proud of.

And being beautiful doesnt hurt either.

 

[KABUKISTAR]

Well, yes. You have got that part of it right. But what about the queer part? I say "queer dyke" instead of "dyke" for a reason. I'm not trying to play a guessing game, I'm just pointing out that a person doesn't have to be simply boy-liking or girl-liking...there are many diverse facets to attraction and orientation.

Care to elaborate, then? Queer is a remarkably vague term.

 

[Etoile]

Care to elaborate, then? Queer is a remarkably vague term.

Sure.

Basically, what I mean is that I am not limited in the type of women I am attracted to, and there are also men that I find attractive. I also find transpeople (particularly FTMs) attractive. However, I am not necessarily interested in having a relationship with them...all my experience (what little there is!) points to preferring women for just about everything two people can do together. But I also won't ignore the possibility that someday I could meet an absolutely fabulous bio-guy and fall in love and live happily ever after. It's about the person, not the gender...it just happens that the traits I prefer in a person are those that are usually found in a woman. I don't identify as a bisexual because, well, I'm not. I like girls, as you noted. But perhaps I am a little bit stranger - queerer - than most dykes, because I appreciate all types of people and can keep my mind open to possibilities, even if they are remote. Very, very remote.

 

[Etoile]

More importantly you are friendly , intelligent and helpful, someone your partner can be very proud of.

And being beautiful doesnt hurt either.

Eeee, thank you! I told my wife that and she said "that sounds like a fortune cookie!" And then she said "I love you, and I am proud of you."

 

[MyFriend27]

well

The first question i have is. Why the hell does any of this matter?

Personally i am not into labels of any sort.
This has to be one of the most uniformative threads every started on LIT.

 

[Etoile]

The first question i have is. Why the hell does any of this matter?

Personally i am not into labels of any sort.
This has to be one of the most uniformative threads every started on LIT.

No, it's definitely not. We have lots and lots of uninformative threads!

Why does it matter? Well, because people like to have a way to identify themselves to others. They like to belong to a group. They like the comfort that comes with knowing that there are others like them.

A lot of people claim they're not into labels. I hear it all the time, from all kinds of people, all over the place. But the fact is, our society revolves around labels. Right-wing and left-wing, male and female, Italian and Japanese, jock and nerd...we all use labels all day long. It's admirable to say that labels don't matter, but I think they will always be around because we depend on them so much.

 

[KABUKISTAR]

This matters, because the current way of labelling leaves some people out, as well as making it easier to stigmatize people based on their sexual orientation, and hides the blatant sexual double-standards within homophobia.

It matters because labels are a necessary part of our language, and how we use them, and how we categorize people and things in our world will affect how we see them, so it's best to do it in the most accurate/logical way possible.

This has to be one of the most uniformative threads every started on LIT.

I don't understand that word

 

[Etoile]

Kabukistar, I was just going to send this via PM, but you don't allow them. MyFriend27 meant uninformative.

 

[MyFriend27]

No, it's definitely not. We have lots and lots of uninformative threads!

Why does it matter? Well, because people like to have a way to identify themselves to others. They like to belong to a group. They like the comfort that comes with knowing that there are others like them.

A lot of people claim they're not into labels. I hear it all the time, from all kinds of people, all over the place. But the fact is, our society revolves around labels. Right-wing and left-wing, male and female, Italian and Japanese, jock and nerd...we all use labels all day long. It's admirable to say that labels don't matter, but I think they will always be around because we depend on them so much.

Yes we have labels and society plays that role in creating that but that is one reason why i dont really believe in labeling people this or that.
What is accomplished by labeling someone gay or straight or bisexual or bicurious or boyliking or girl liking?

 

[MyFriend27]

Kabukistar, I was just going to send this via PM, but you don't allow them. MyFriend27 meant uninformative.

Thank You Etoile

 

[KABUKISTAR]

Kabukistar, I was just going to send this via PM, but you don't allow them. MyFriend27 meant uninformative.

Ok, thanks.

I figured it was that, but I thought maybe it was some weird derivative of "uniform."

Sorry; I didn't realize PMs disabled was the default setting. I fixed it.