You're confusing submissive/dominant relationship roles with genders. The roles have traditional gender associations, but are hardly inherint to their respective genders.
The idea of gender really makes the "homosexual" issue more complicated than it needs to be; it's not really about sexuality, they're just people, let them be together if they want.
If you would permit me to loosely borrow a metaphor from the question of supernatural belief: ideas about gender-appropriate relationships are like religious beliefs, the only rational position based on currently available information is to reject all preconcieved ideas of appropriateness and allow people to decide what is best for themselves.
I understand you're not advocating any sort of anti-"homosexual" agenda, but it does seem like you are still rapt with the rigid idea of biological-gender-as-a-social-indicator.
cooperati
· 7 months ago
A few months ago I tried to break down the essential differences. I came up with a simple model, extrapolated from earlier research by others;
Gender: Male, Female, or Neutral.
(*Extrernal) Sexuality: Attraction to Male, Female, or Neutral, and Detraction to the same. (One can have any combination of attraction and detraction, excepting to the same gender at the same time.)
Placed side by side, this encompasses homo, hetero, and bisexuality as well as asexuality.
When I understood this subject in this manner, I also acknowledged that there are no needs for special rights being given to any minority or majority. Gay Rights becomes a misnomer that implies Straight Rights, and supporting and enforcing one means supporting and enforcing the other. As with Affirmative Action and "racial quotas", special rights for each demographic is a disastarous method to "even the playing field."
(*)There is another dimension I am only vaguely aware of, of being attracted/detracted to one's internal gender, that goes beyond simple acceptance. In the case of extreme detraction, rejection is probable.
One interesting observation is that my interpretations rely on a premise that there is a range of both gender and sexuality. That we see only a few variations may be a result of the effect of the societal lens through which we are educated in.
However, it must be noted that humanity would dwindle by the generations without heterosexuality as the mode of reproduction.
-=T=-
CarlM
· 7 months ago
(1) I don't believe that your premise is universally true: "at least one of the partners in a gay pair have pronounced characteristics of the opposite sex"
(2) Your argument seems to rely on a slightly different premise: "EXACTLY one of the partners in a gay pair have pronounced characteristics of the opposite sex"
(3) Your assertion: "I don’t think there’s any such thing as “gay” attraction" is based on interviews with how many hundreds of gay people?
(4) "There’s just boys liking girls, and girls liking boys." Of course, that's true if you choose to ignore the fact that there are boys who like boys and girls who like girls. As you're not the type to ignore facts, I've got to assume that this post is a joke of some sort. Evidence? "In short, gay couples aren’t being “gay”; they’re being heterosexual in a non-standard way." This is either a joke or evidence that you have completely given up on dictionary definitions:
het·er·o·sex·u·al (hět'ə-rō-sěk'shōō-əl) adj. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex
Daniel Miessler
· 7 months ago
1) I would agree it's not universal. My argument is that it's the norm, however.
2) Yes.
3) I have known *many* gay couples over the years. To Under the Radar's Point, however, I have also likely known many others who were gay and I didn't know it. So I admit to the weakness of this anecdotal evidence.
4) My point here is that there's not a separate type of sexuality, but rather simply a different name for a non-standard type of heterosexuality. But yes, I concede this is not technically true due to the dictionary. It's just an idea.
Finally, I just want to say that this is an idea. A concept. A model. I'm not claiming this to be absolutely correct with nothing able to change my mind. I'm still struggling with how to forcefully put out an idea like this while leaving room for agnosticism.
Under the Radar
· 7 months ago
For once, I highly disagree with what you're saying.
I'm gay. I actually don't like calling myself "gay", because there's nothing "gay" about me except my attraction to men. Some people might say that's pretty gay. But really, "gay" seems to be a loaded term that suggests so much more about a person than just their sexual attraction to somebody of the same sex, i.e., their mannerisms, how they dress, their interests, the music they listen to, how masculine/feminine they are, etc. Me personally - nobody ever suspects I'm gay. I'm a full contact fighter, I'm an engineer, my interests are all "masculine", I appear "straight". Gay people don't even pick up on the fact that I'm "gay".
My sexual attraction is to men. I'm a man attracted to men. I don't like boyish qualities, and I don't like feminine qualities.
I will say that you are correct in most cases. I see a lot of what of you're saying, but there are exceptions. I'm one of them. It's not near as easy to find a real man to date as it is to find somebody boyish or somewhat feminine, exuding "gay" traits one way or another. But I'm not into "gay" at all.
Here's my last point. You're going to notice "gay" couples, or "gay" people, because they have "gay" traits. They stand out as "gay". There are regular guys out there that are homosexual, but not really "gay", that you aren't going to notice. I've had a couple of boyfriends before. You wouldn't be analyzing our relationship as a "gay" couple, like you are other people, because you would never know we were a couple. You'd see two guys hanging out, and assume we're friends. Society sees the "gay" people that stand out as "gay". They're not the only ones out there. I do feel like an exception to the rule at times, but that's partly because people like me just aren't as noticeable as "gay" people. I know quite a few people like me, and the world is largely oblivious to the fact that we exist. And there has to be tons more.
I know that us homosexuals who aren't "gay", typically feel less inclined to be "out". I do just fine at my job, in the fighting community, etc., without having to discuss the fact that I'm attracted to men and not women. And for better or worse, I fly under society's radar as a "gay" man.
To sum up, you're going to have a hard time backing up your thoughts on same sex attraction. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that with respect to your statement about one of the people in a same sex relationship always taking on the roles of the opposite sex - you're wrong. My past relationships, and the kind of relationships I look for, serve as a counter example.
Daniel Miessler
· 7 months ago
First off, I apologize if I was offensive to you. I remember you from earlier conversations, and I actually thought of you toward the end of writing this as a possible voice to show an exception to this model.
It sounds, however, like you're not really disagreeing with my overall model, but rather saying it's not *always* accurate. I am totally open to that. My question to you would be: "what percentage of gay relationships do you think is accurately described by this model, vs. the percentage that is not?"
Thanks for the comment; I appreciate the input.
CarlM
· 7 months ago
No offense to "Radar" but he may have no special insight here. He has already said that HE is often "under the radar" of other homosexuals. If a detector systematically omits ONE sort of data, there's no way to tell (by looking only at the output of that detector) how much data it is missing. I'm not suggesting that research into this question couldn't be done (for all I know it's been done already). I'm suggesting that conjecture based on observation is likely MEANINGLESS in this instance.
Daniel, you said: "I'm still struggling with how to forcefully put out an idea like this while leaving room for [uncertainty]." Why do you feel compelled to FORCEFULLY put out an idea that you haven't got sufficient evidence for? Throwing out an idea as a discussion point is one thing .. forcefully making statements containing absolutes ("There is only “sexual attraction” between men and women") is another.
CarlM
· 7 months ago
"I will say that you are correct in most cases." I'm not even sure that this is true (though it certainly MAY be true). For MOST of the people we come into contact with, we have absolutely no clue as to their sexual orientation. It is simply not something that is relevant and it just doesn't come up. If we see a pair of people showing signs of affection in public, we may assume that they are a "couple" (and we may or may not be right). If we see people of the opposite sex together we may make this assumption even absent the showing of affection (and we may or may not be right). As "Under the Radar" just pointed out, we generally do NOT make this assumption about a pair of same-sex people unless they show signs of affection or show some other behavior that we associate with "gayness" (and, once again, we may or may not be right about any assumptions we make based on what we observe).
I think that until homosexuality is taken as a matter of fact and ceases to be stigmatized by portions of society, there's little hope of reaching correct conclusions of the sorts being conjectured here based on casual observation alone. (The existence of closeted individuals may skew such conclusions.)
kenotic
· 7 months ago
I have seen a lot of examples of both in my time. I have a friend now who is "gay" and he acts like a redneck. All he wants to do is hunt, fish, drink beer, and ride dirt bikes. His partner is the exact same way. I often wonder how they found each other, but that could be a blog post in and of itself.
To Daniel's point, in most cases fem is attracted to masculine, sub attracted to dom and so forth and I feel it hold true in most cases. The one thing where is brakes down for me is bisexuality. it seems that this state constantly blurs the lines.
Never the less this is an interesting discussion point.
Arik
· 6 months ago
Pretty narrow minded article.
First, I know several homosexual couples that are not distinctly "top" and "bottom". In the community lingo, they're "switch".
Second, in a lot of relationships there is a dominant partner and a submissive (or less dominant) partner. At work, in social gathering etc. The genders play a lesser role - a more dominant woman in a work environment is not uncommon. In a sexual context there are many heterosexual relationships in which the woman is dominant and the man is submissive. I don't see why a homosexual relationship should be any different.
Third, what do you characterize as "feminine" or "masculine"? What makes a "boy" lesbian or a "girl" lesbian? If the answer is dominance vs. submissiveness, go to previous argument.
Fourth - regarding kenotic's point about bisexuality - my opinion about it is that for bisexuals, there are factors in attraction that are not gender specific. While the gender may play a role, other factors overwhelm it to the point of insignificance. If true, this assumption breaks your theory down completely because it defines a whole new dimension to attraction between people outside of the feminine / masculine theory. Or perhaps, to look at it another way, that factor for the bisexual becomes THE definition of masculine / feminine.
Fifth: You are not the first person to have questions about sexuality, and not the first person to try to answer them. In fact there's an entire institute dedicated to just such questions and research about the answer - the Kinsey institute. I suggest you read up on some of those topics before forming an opinion, so you may stand on the shoulders of giants.
All Comments
The idea of gender really makes the "homosexual" issue more complicated than it needs to be; it's not really about sexuality, they're just people, let them be together if they want.
If you would permit me to loosely borrow a metaphor from the question of supernatural belief: ideas about gender-appropriate relationships are like religious beliefs, the only rational position based on currently available information is to reject all preconcieved ideas of appropriateness and allow people to decide what is best for themselves.
I understand you're not advocating any sort of anti-"homosexual" agenda, but it does seem like you are still rapt with the rigid idea of biological-gender-as-a-social-indicator.
Gender: Male, Female, or Neutral.
(*Extrernal) Sexuality: Attraction to Male, Female, or Neutral, and Detraction to the same. (One can have any combination of attraction and detraction, excepting to the same gender at the same time.)
Placed side by side, this encompasses homo, hetero, and bisexuality as well as asexuality.
When I understood this subject in this manner, I also acknowledged that there are no needs for special rights being given to any minority or majority. Gay Rights becomes a misnomer that implies Straight Rights, and supporting and enforcing one means supporting and enforcing the other. As with Affirmative Action and "racial quotas", special rights for each demographic is a disastarous method to "even the playing field."
(*)There is another dimension I am only vaguely aware of, of being attracted/detracted to one's internal gender, that goes beyond simple acceptance. In the case of extreme detraction, rejection is probable.
One interesting observation is that my interpretations rely on a premise that there is a range of both gender and sexuality. That we see only a few variations may be a result of the effect of the societal lens through which we are educated in.
However, it must be noted that humanity would dwindle by the generations without heterosexuality as the mode of reproduction.
-=T=-
(2) Your argument seems to rely on a slightly different premise: "EXACTLY one of the partners in a gay pair have pronounced characteristics of the opposite sex"
(3) Your assertion: "I don’t think there’s any such thing as “gay” attraction" is based on interviews with how many hundreds of gay people?
(4) "There’s just boys liking girls, and girls liking boys." Of course, that's true if you choose to ignore the fact that there are boys who like boys and girls who like girls. As you're not the type to ignore facts, I've got to assume that this post is a joke of some sort. Evidence? "In short, gay couples aren’t being “gay”; they’re being heterosexual in a non-standard way." This is either a joke or evidence that you have completely given up on dictionary definitions:
het·er·o·sex·u·al (hět'ə-rō-sěk'shōō-əl)
adj. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex
2) Yes.
3) I have known *many* gay couples over the years. To Under the Radar's Point, however, I have also likely known many others who were gay and I didn't know it. So I admit to the weakness of this anecdotal evidence.
4) My point here is that there's not a separate type of sexuality, but rather simply a different name for a non-standard type of heterosexuality. But yes, I concede this is not technically true due to the dictionary. It's just an idea.
Finally, I just want to say that this is an idea. A concept. A model. I'm not claiming this to be absolutely correct with nothing able to change my mind. I'm still struggling with how to forcefully put out an idea like this while leaving room for agnosticism.
I'm gay. I actually don't like calling myself "gay", because there's nothing "gay" about me except my attraction to men. Some people might say that's pretty gay. But really, "gay" seems to be a loaded term that suggests so much more about a person than just their sexual attraction to somebody of the same sex, i.e., their mannerisms, how they dress, their interests, the music they listen to, how masculine/feminine they are, etc. Me personally - nobody ever suspects I'm gay. I'm a full contact fighter, I'm an engineer, my interests are all "masculine", I appear "straight". Gay people don't even pick up on the fact that I'm "gay".
My sexual attraction is to men. I'm a man attracted to men. I don't like boyish qualities, and I don't like feminine qualities.
I will say that you are correct in most cases. I see a lot of what of you're saying, but there are exceptions. I'm one of them. It's not near as easy to find a real man to date as it is to find somebody boyish or somewhat feminine, exuding "gay" traits one way or another. But I'm not into "gay" at all.
Here's my last point. You're going to notice "gay" couples, or "gay" people, because they have "gay" traits. They stand out as "gay". There are regular guys out there that are homosexual, but not really "gay", that you aren't going to notice. I've had a couple of boyfriends before. You wouldn't be analyzing our relationship as a "gay" couple, like you are other people, because you would never know we were a couple. You'd see two guys hanging out, and assume we're friends. Society sees the "gay" people that stand out as "gay". They're not the only ones out there. I do feel like an exception to the rule at times, but that's partly because people like me just aren't as noticeable as "gay" people. I know quite a few people like me, and the world is largely oblivious to the fact that we exist. And there has to be tons more.
I know that us homosexuals who aren't "gay", typically feel less inclined to be "out". I do just fine at my job, in the fighting community, etc., without having to discuss the fact that I'm attracted to men and not women. And for better or worse, I fly under society's radar as a "gay" man.
To sum up, you're going to have a hard time backing up your thoughts on same sex attraction. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that with respect to your statement about one of the people in a same sex relationship always taking on the roles of the opposite sex - you're wrong. My past relationships, and the kind of relationships I look for, serve as a counter example.
It sounds, however, like you're not really disagreeing with my overall model, but rather saying it's not *always* accurate. I am totally open to that. My question to you would be: "what percentage of gay relationships do you think is accurately described by this model, vs. the percentage that is not?"
Thanks for the comment; I appreciate the input.
Daniel, you said: "I'm still struggling with how to forcefully put out an idea like this while leaving room for [uncertainty]." Why do you feel compelled to FORCEFULLY put out an idea that you haven't got sufficient evidence for? Throwing out an idea as a discussion point is one thing .. forcefully making statements containing absolutes ("There is only “sexual attraction” between men and women") is another.
I think that until homosexuality is taken as a matter of fact and ceases to be stigmatized by portions of society, there's little hope of reaching correct conclusions of the sorts being conjectured here based on casual observation alone. (The existence of closeted individuals may skew such conclusions.)
To Daniel's point, in most cases fem is attracted to masculine, sub attracted to dom and so forth and I feel it hold true in most cases. The one thing where is brakes down for me is bisexuality. it seems that this state constantly blurs the lines.
Never the less this is an interesting discussion point.
First, I know several homosexual couples that are not distinctly "top" and "bottom". In the community lingo, they're "switch".
Second, in a lot of relationships there is a dominant partner and a submissive (or less dominant) partner. At work, in social gathering etc. The genders play a lesser role - a more dominant woman in a work environment is not uncommon. In a sexual context there are many heterosexual relationships in which the woman is dominant and the man is submissive. I don't see why a homosexual relationship should be any different.
Third, what do you characterize as "feminine" or "masculine"? What makes a "boy" lesbian or a "girl" lesbian? If the answer is dominance vs. submissiveness, go to previous argument.
Fourth - regarding kenotic's point about bisexuality - my opinion about it is that for bisexuals, there are factors in attraction that are not gender specific. While the gender may play a role, other factors overwhelm it to the point of insignificance. If true, this assumption breaks your theory down completely because it defines a whole new dimension to attraction between people outside of the feminine / masculine theory. Or perhaps, to look at it another way, that factor for the bisexual becomes THE definition of masculine / feminine.
Fifth: You are not the first person to have questions about sexuality, and not the first person to try to answer them. In fact there's an entire institute dedicated to just such questions and research about the answer - the Kinsey institute. I suggest you read up on some of those topics before forming an opinion, so you may stand on the shoulders of giants.
-- Arik