Sexual Preference
Delarosa
Naturally Custom Join Date: 2002-11-29 Member: 10214Members, NS1 Playtester
Naturally Custom Join Date: 2002-11-29 Member: 10214Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription"> - a Verbal debate</div> When asked the question, “what is your sexual preference” inside a person’s mind, there pops up a little menu, and you’ve got 3 options to chose from. Those options are straight, BI, or Homosexual… nothing else. If someone like me, a straight male, mentions that he happens to have a “different” sexual preference, does that imply that I am bisexual or homosexual? Of course not, but it is still the first thing that comes to mind.
In today’s world we learn about how the English language is as ambiguous as it is regulated. But where do we as a population learn what “sexual preference” mean when our language is as vague as it is? Simply put, the media we are exposed to. Due to the media that we have been exposed to, we have set in our minds a very distinct
An analogy can be used to describe the use of the phrase in question:
A hammer can be used to put a nail in a wall. But the same hammer, when used differently, can be used to break down that same wall. Again, using the hammer differently, can be used to remove just the nail, a part of the wall, or even the texture on the wall. All with the same tool.
“sexual preference” is like our hammer because we can use it one way, to achieve one end, but does that mean that it’s the only end we can reach by using the tool?
To recap, just because I’ve rambled a bit. The topic is:
<b>Can and does the term “sexual preference” have more than one meaning or implication?</b>
-and –
<b>Can the default implication of a phrase or tool be wrong, an thus making the use of the phrase or tool invalid?</b>
for those waiting to make this into a debate over symatics.. i hereby provide deffinitions to work with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->sex•u•al
Pronunciation: 'sek-sh(&-)w&l, 'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin sexualis, from Latin sexus sex
Date: 1651
1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict>
2 : having or involving sex <sexual reproduction>
pref•er•ence
Pronunciation: 'pre-f&rn(t)s, 'pre-f(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English preferraunce, from Middle French preferance, from Medieval Latin praeferentia, from Latin praeferent-, praeferens, present participle of praeferre
Date: 15th century
1 a : the act of preferring : the state of being preferred b : the power or opportunity of choosing
2 : one that is preferred
3 : the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
4 : priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation
(see CHOICE)
--==] The above Definitions come from <a href='http://www.m-w.com/home.htm' target='_blank'>www.m-w.com/home.htm</a> [==--<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In today’s world we learn about how the English language is as ambiguous as it is regulated. But where do we as a population learn what “sexual preference” mean when our language is as vague as it is? Simply put, the media we are exposed to. Due to the media that we have been exposed to, we have set in our minds a very distinct
An analogy can be used to describe the use of the phrase in question:
A hammer can be used to put a nail in a wall. But the same hammer, when used differently, can be used to break down that same wall. Again, using the hammer differently, can be used to remove just the nail, a part of the wall, or even the texture on the wall. All with the same tool.
“sexual preference” is like our hammer because we can use it one way, to achieve one end, but does that mean that it’s the only end we can reach by using the tool?
To recap, just because I’ve rambled a bit. The topic is:
<b>Can and does the term “sexual preference” have more than one meaning or implication?</b>
-and –
<b>Can the default implication of a phrase or tool be wrong, an thus making the use of the phrase or tool invalid?</b>
for those waiting to make this into a debate over symatics.. i hereby provide deffinitions to work with:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->sex•u•al
Pronunciation: 'sek-sh(&-)w&l, 'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin sexualis, from Latin sexus sex
Date: 1651
1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict>
2 : having or involving sex <sexual reproduction>
pref•er•ence
Pronunciation: 'pre-f&rn(t)s, 'pre-f(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English preferraunce, from Middle French preferance, from Medieval Latin praeferentia, from Latin praeferent-, praeferens, present participle of praeferre
Date: 15th century
1 a : the act of preferring : the state of being preferred b : the power or opportunity of choosing
2 : one that is preferred
3 : the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
4 : priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation
(see CHOICE)
--==] The above Definitions come from <a href='http://www.m-w.com/home.htm' target='_blank'>www.m-w.com/home.htm</a> [==--<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
-and –
<b>Can the default implication of a phrase or tool be wrong, an thus making the use of the phrase or tool invalid?</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes the phrase sexual preference has more than one meaning
for instance, mine is female, or yes...
yes I don't see why not, if the base is wrong the rest suffers
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There are certainly other sexual practices which don't fit into the above trinity. Sex outside your own species for example.
If you don't want to define it as hetero, bi or homo, then don't.
It's all about how you feel, the areas are a lot greyer than three clear cut headings.
Much agreed. The "Monster" of societies demographical nature is very simliar to rascism and sexual preference, among others. Not exact, but the way in which people tend to look at as black or white, or other solid non-mixed colors, tends to hold true. Grey areas are dismissed as irrelevent or non-existent.
like esuna, i suppose.
for instance, i'd estimate myself 20% guys, 80 powerful % girls.
edit: can't believe i said powful.
Plot them out like you would a graph, except three-dimensional; perhaps something like a sphere.
Now... find your spot on that chart. You'll find that a lot of people don't fit precisely on any of the S, X, or G lines; some of us mostly prefer guys over girls, some guys are a bit feminine, some are entirely masculine, some of us are physically female but are somewhat of the male gender, etc, etc.
Thanks to Prof. Anderson of Men & Masculinities for that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just the 'common man' only sees 'hammer nails' or 'pull nails'.
Personally, I really prefer the term 'asexual'. It doesn't mean that you aren't interested in sex (that's 'non-sexual', by the way), it means that the gender (or carried further, species) of your partner does not matter, it's more of them as a person (or entity, or non-entity, going still further). I tend to use 'g*y' more often, as it's a pain in the butt to have to explain what asexual means to every flat-browed SUV driver who comes along and overhears a discussion along these lines, and I do lean toward other males.
Plot them out like you would a graph, except three-dimensional; perhaps something like a sphere.
Now... find your spot on that chart. You'll find that a lot of people don't fit precisely on any of the S, X, or G lines; some of us mostly prefer guys over girls, some guys are a bit feminine, some are entirely masculine, some of us are physically female but are somewhat of the male gender, etc, etc.
Thanks to Prof. Anderson of Men & Masculinities for that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ever heard of the term "metrosexual"?
i read it in time magazine, i think...
but more people have called me that than i ever counted on.
wonder if the term's gonna catch on more, or only gonna last w/ qu33r eye for the straight guy.
ever heard of the term "metrosexual"?
i read it in time magazine, i think...
but more people have called me that than i ever counted on.
wonder if the term's gonna catch on more, or only gonna last w/ qu33r eye for the straight guy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the term "metrosexual" is used in the latest TIME magazine. It's the title of a section of the latest issue's holiday gift guide, and describes the term as applying to "the straight guy who isn't afraid of a pedicure."
That's what I thought too, actually.
So many terms out there... the thing is, you're kind of limited by the terms society uses when you try to explain yourself, because otherwise everyone who hears you gives you a blank look.
Happens a lot in LGBT community.. i mean, so far we're at LGBT (lesbian, ****, bi, transgender), but that's because we're using umbrella terms. I've run into a large number of folks who've come up with their own terms for what they are, and NO ONE knows what the hell they're talking about until they spend time describing it to each and every new person.
No, that's asexual reproduction. Which actually can refer to a life form which can reproduce with or without sexual intercourse.
When referring to sexual preference, asexual means that your partner is what matters, not their physical form. See: Hopeless Romantic. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let me play devil's advocate a little..
If the meanings of homosexuality is to only prefer same sex, and the meaning of heterosexual is to only prefer opposite sex, then by saying you are heterosexual and you 'dabble' in homosexuality is contrary to the definitions. Bisexuality is meant to cover all ground inbetween.
For the sake of this argument, we'll define your (general you) sexual preference by your relationships. We'll say if 100% of your relationships were opposite sex, you are heterosexual. Likewise, if 100% were same sex, you are homosexual.
So if these are the definitions, then what is 99 through 1%? This is bisexuality. Granted, it is a greyish area, and doesn't imply you are homosexual or heterosexual. This is the idea. It means you prefer at least in part, the same sex as well as opposite sex.
As for the tool thing, most people are fixated on functionality, that is, every tool is used for a purpose and only that purpose (i.e. hammers are only used to hit nails). However, if you asked someone if a hammer can be used as a doorstop or paperweight, you would be inclined to say no, though it would work pretty well for that purpose. It's called "thinking in the box."
As for sexual preference, sure it's a sliding scale, but you really can have three areas. It isn't like there's 40 different genders you can sleep around with. Too many terms is as great as a danger as too few.
still trying to get a handle on that last part, but metrosexual is a pretty weird word.
it's not about a different sexual preference, really. the "sexual" of metrosexual is there for effect.
it's easier to say than "sexuality-comfortable fashion-savvy almost-g4y-kinda-maybe-sorta but still heterosexual"
that's for sure. yuk yuk.
i think all of my concerns were covered, the pre-definition, the sliding scale and such topics... even the parts of my analogy that were wrong <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
thanks...
I really hate that term because it has nothing to do with their sexuality...
These "roles" we are so used to filling.. SNAP OUT OF IT! In 50 years, they will be completely gone, and we will be the only generation still following them still. Moral of the story? Tradition is a stupid concept. Do things because they make sense, not because that's what you're supposed to do.
I couldn't agree more. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bender says "Naaa its ok, as long as people dont think we are Robosexual" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<3 Futurama
On topic?
"These "roles" we are so used to filling.. SNAP OUT OF IT! In 50 years, they will be completely gone, and we will be the only generation still following them still."
I like this thinking... our children will grow up in an era (hopefully) void of gender, sexuality, race, and nationality Prejuidice (sp <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). How wonderful would that be? beyond my imagination...
the only way the future will be void of gender is if all humans are born sexless from test tubes, or some other crazyness.
I dont want my kids to grow up in a world lacking gender!
^
|
the PROBLEM with gender is how it restricts people and their minds. Because of gender, the way I act, think, speak, dress, the jobs I can hold and the sports I play and the movies I watch, all are already DECIDED for me by a society that didn't let me get in a single word; and if I ever setp outside the boundaries, people call me a dyke, a tomboy, butch... and it all applies for men in the reverse.
If we could just have gender, but simply make it a word that identifies instead of a limiting factor, then I think it could be a good thing.
I pity these people.
Things change. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be as an individual.
disgusting.
i feel better about my being open-minded, and about others who are open-minded, when there are those who are NOT so open-minded.
does anyone feel the same way?
does anyone feel that, without the diversity the likes of which we have today (diversity in religion, sexuality, and race, of course.. but also diversity in OPINION)
the world would be so vanilla you'd want it back the way it was?
I really hate that term because it has nothing to do with their sexuality... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the term has the word "sexual", which, as you said, is in the wrong place..
but it serves a good purpose, i think.
i'm pretty fashion-savvy (luv my diesel shoes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) i have a daily moisturizing routine..i cook like there's no tomorrow.. i'm open-minded, generally a nice guy... i have straight, g3y, and bi friends.. etc i guess.
that fits it, right?
edit: my number is... juust kidding. don't take the above as a self-pimpage <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
the world would be so vanilla you'd want it back the way it was?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conforming the same standards on men and women is diversity? I think you need to refresh your definition of diversity.
<!--QuoteBegin--www.dictionary.com+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (www.dictionary.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->diversity
\Di*ver"si*ty\, n.; pl. Diversities. [F. diversit['e], L. diversitas, fr. diversus. See Diverse.] 1. A state of difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forcing the world to assimilate into 2 groups is hardly diverse. Diversity has no "conformity." Heck they are complete opposites and would make an oxymoron if put in the same sentence. Allow people to be what they are. That's the core of diversity as you'll soon see.
you read my post wrong..lol
basically there are MORE diversity categories than people consider.
FOR EXAMPLE:
1. racism or non-racism
2. sexism or non-sexism
3. homophobes or non-homophobes
without these existing... etc. see my above post.