Comments | glenniebun: More on masculinity

glenniebun

More on masculinity

Aug 10, 2009 15:47

zanduar made a good point-- my previous post just kind of abruptly ended; I ran out of steam, proofread a bit and loosed the post upon the world. So now I'm ready to do it again! By way of prompt, zanduar asked:How do you feel as a man? If it weren't for your penis, would you be any different from anyone else? Are the actual biological differences noticeable to ( Read more... )

relationships, culture, introspection, personal history

Comments 10

zanduar August 11 2009, 03:58:33 UTC

My friend is pursuing his masters in psychology with a focus on deviant behavior so talking about all of this stuff doesn't phase me. There is actually a large grading difference between straight, bi and gay that modern culture ignores. I myself have occasionally found myself attracted to certain men but I identify as straight.

glenniebun August 11 2009, 16:39:41 UTC

Grading difference? What do you mean?

zanduar August 11 2009, 16:44:44 UTC

I'm sure you already know but there are way more than 3 choices for sexuality. Usually a scale from 1 to 10 is used. I'm trying to remember the name of the psychologist who studied sex almost exclusively but his name eludes me.

Basically I'm saying that things aren't so simple as straight, bi, and gay.

glenniebun August 11 2009, 16:51:06 UTC

Ah, right, the Kinsey scale. ("Grading" threw me off a bit.) Yeah, that's what I was getting at above when I mentioned tossing out the conceptual boxes instead of jamming everything into them.

Thread 8

(The comment has been removed)

glenniebun August 13 2009, 03:56:31 UTC

I remember you asking me how I dealt with the subject back in...2005, was it? I was in the middle of my "pretty much straight" period, so I think my answer was something along the lines of "buh...I guess it's just kind of there."

I rather wish I could be more honest.

Yes. Exactly. I don't know how to work these things into conversation, and yet it feels dishonest not to.

But the perception that woman who claim to be bisexual have mysterious alterior motives is...just...weird. ... Perhaps it stems from the general idea that a woman's sexuality is not her own, but for public consumption.

I think that's precisely it. Note that that assumption/assertion is only made about women; societal anxieties compensate for female bisexuality by casting it as an oh-so-hot fetish for dudez to fantasize about. Because clearly everything needs to be centered on heterosexual male experience. Male bisexuality, meanwhile, while not so fetishized, is simply ignored altogether. I'm reminded of this post partially discussing straight-passing privilege ( ... )

astute_reason August 13 2009, 03:34:47 UTC

I think ones sexual identity is made overly complicated. Of course, society is not an ally with such matters, because for the most part humanity is void of reason. It is not even clear what defines gay and straight, because the definition of attraction does not really exist in some universal standard. With attraction, do we mean sexual lusts, physical attraction, moral character, intelligence, sense of humor, other factors, or a mixture there of? What is love? Is orientation merely just who you want to fuck or suck (sorry for the coarse terms)? If orientation is so narrowly defined, then the classification is bunk. A man's hole and a woman's hole can get anyone off (again sorry for the coarse language, but it cannot be avoided when discussing sex). Sex then is just a sensation of nerve endings. Or is sex more; a physical act that is a validation of emotions and affection towards another?

Why must human behavior and identity be so rigid? Free love man.