So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an erection...so were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 1885

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So then lesbians are the only group who don't have a distinguishable "sex" act.
So then lesbians are the only group who don't have a distinguishable "sex" act.

If I understand your criteria at all, I don't know the answer to that. You will not get perfectly universal answers in any group. It would boil down to a matter of statistics, and I don't have those numbers. I'm not sure that anyone does.

I'm simply trying to have some sort of value to the word sex. If there was a trial and someone said two males were having sex there would be no need to further clarify.

I wouldn't consider it clear. I've known some gay men that will not have anal sex. I've talked to some gay men that do not consider fellatio to fully be sex in the same sense as other acts.
Sorry, what is the third or fourth option then if this is a false dichotomy? You even confirm the latter option 2 responses down: "There are several acts that are validly and properly considered sexual intercourse between lesbians."

I have to agree with Kris. I realize there are multiple things that can be considered "sex" between lesbians, but does a lesbian make an assumption that any particular act has happened if another lesbian said she had sex last night? There are, after all, some safe assumptions:
1. She does not mean they played golf
2. She does not mean they had a long talk
3. She does mean something physical took place
4. She may mean there was emotional intimacy involved, though this is possible with or without sex, and doesn't always happen with sex, so it doesn't seem to bear much on the question.

Now, maybe some lesbians do consider golf sex, but I'm not looking for an answer that includes every possible interpretation of sex.

I guess the point is, is if sex includes EVERYTHING, then why bother saying you had sex? Since it can't properly be defined as a emotional intimacy, it is then a meaningless statement. Few people, save for priests, generally spout meaningless crap for no reason. (Heck, I'm having sex with my dog right now, and by sex I mean I'm petting her head.)

So what does one lesbian think another lesbian has PROBABLY done when she says she had sex last night? Of course she might be wrong in her assumption since maybe she's thinking act X when it's really act Y, but is there a particular X that comes to mind first? In other words, I'm looking for the most common act or acts, not a dictionary definition that says sex is meaningless because it can mean anything.

Alternatively, if you still don't want to tie it to specific acts, what would you consider the nature of sex to be? What qualifies something for inclusion in the definition of sexual intercourse, if not emotional intimacy or certain types of physical intimacy (which don't include head petting)? "Acting on lustful desires' is the closest thing I can come up with, so long as lust is differentiated from other desires like hunger, craving for touch, desire to make someone you love feel good (dog example again), etc.

So...your choices:
1. Is there any assumed act, though it is only assumed with the knowledge they might be wrong?
2. Sex means a particular type or types of connection that involve the physical...and if so, please clarify
3. An alternative you're aware of that I'm not or that I haven't enumerated.
4. You still would rather attack our desire to know what words mean, or you insist we should assume lesbians could mean golf when they say they had sex, because the word is so meaningless to you.
Also: "I also don't see why tribidism where contact is genitals to genitals would be any less sexual intercourse for lesbians than a heterosexual case of sex through genital to genital contact."

Um...when heteros do that, they call it humping or grinding or whatever, not the common definition of sex. But at the same time, I don't deny that it would be legitimate for lesbians to call grinding sex in their case, if they so choose. Just not the commonly understood definition in the hetero world. And that's all we're looking for - commonly understood definitions among lesbians.
Sorry, what is the third or fourth option then if this is a false dichotomy? You even confirm the latter option 2 responses down: "There are several acts that are validly and properly considered sexual intercourse between lesbians."

His question implies some sort of consensus in colloquial usage; my statement does not. The term could have inherent ambiguity in such usage. There is also an issue of differing semantics for the term 'sexual intercourse' between he and I.

I guess the point is, is if sex includes EVERYTHING, then why bother saying you had sex? Since it can't properly be defined as a emotional intimacy, it is then a meaningless statement.

Nobody said that sex includes 'EVERYTHING'.

Alternatively, if you still don't want to tie it to specific acts, what would you consider the nature of sex to be?

Terms vary in specificity. In the context of this conversation, sex would have to include an interaction between two or more people focusing on the stimulation of sex organs (intending) to provoke sexual arousal and orgasm. I think that eliminates a large chunk of 'EVERYTHING', including gold (unless my understanding of the game is way off).

4. You still would rather attack our desire to know what words mean, or you insist we should assume lesbians could mean golf when they say they had sex, because the word is so meaningless to you.

I was willing to assume the best up to now, but this is a total straw man. I never attacked anyone's desire to know what words mean. I also never said that the word was meaningless. I don't appreciate things being falsely attributed to me.

Um...when heteros do that, they call it humping or grinding or whatever, not the common definition of sex.

When a man's penis penetrates a woman's vagina, the end result is going to be genitals rubbing against each other. My apologies for not explicitly stating 'during penetration'.
I hate this website.
"I was willing to assume the best up to now, but this is a total straw man. I never attacked anyone's desire to know what words mean. I also never said that the word was meaningless. I don't appreciate things being falsely attributed to me."
>Apologies for my tone. Also for the fact I shouldn't have said the presumptive word "still" without fully understanding your intentions. I'm simply as frustrated as Kris with what SEEMED to be a stubborn refusal to respond usefully to the fact that this term is used widely by lesbians and it probably has some sort of meaning. Just trying to figure out what the meaning is, and while your answers take an authoritative tone, and are worded in a way that indicates we should just be satisfied with not knowing, they do not provide answers to the specific questions being asked (or at least, the spirit in which they were asked, which is clear to me, but either it was not clear to you or you were indeed being surly).

Your response that it has to do with sexually stimulating someone and orgasm is finally a straight answer to the fundamental question, or at least the question that I was asking (forgive me if you did every say something to that effect in subsequent replies, I don't think I've read the complete thread). I will point out though, as someone smarter than me once said, if orgasm is part of it then there are hundreds of millions of biological mothers who have never had sex. Yes you said "intending," but lots of women go into it without that intention, and some men go into it without intending to have the woman orgasm. Plus I believe it's possible to enjoy "sex" without an orgasm or intention of one, at least for women.

I don't feel a need to make lesbian sex and hetero sex exactly analogous...BUT...this is probably the reason heteros like me are so very confused about what constitutes lesbian sex. Because to us, it's not orgasm, it's not emotional intimacy, it's not even impregnation these days. It is tied to and defined by a very specific act. (Of course it can be extended to oral sex, etc., but that's not what is commonly understood when someone says they had sex.)

I think there are 3 possibilities here.
1. There is a somewhat widely accepted meaning, that may well vary culture to culture, which you, me, and Kris just aren't aware of.
2. it's not a totally meaningless statement, but that still doesn't mean anyone knows what it means.
3. we all know what it means on an intuitive level, but we can't describe it (like Justice Stewart and hardcore pornography). I imagine an act can be sex in some contexts and not in others (e.g. mouth-to-mouth is not kissing).

I'm leaning towards 1 or 3, and I think you lean towards 3.

Actually, I'm going to add a 4th. That people think it's 3, except that it really CAN be described. And I think it's a worthy exercise to attempt, which is why I'm engaging in this discussion.

[["When a man's penis penetrates a woman's vagina, the end result is going to be genitals rubbing against each other. My apologies for not explicitly stating 'during penetration'."
>Right...you were saying grinding in lesbians is equivalent to penetration in heteros - I'm just saying grinding in lesbians is equivalent to grinding, regardless of gender. And heteros don't call that sex, so it's a weak argument to say that something heteros definitively don't consider sexual intercourse would be 'as legitimately called sexual intercourse,' so long as it's two females. But again, it's totally cool with me if lesbians consider it sex; just commenting on the rhetoric.]]
I have a dog I could watch chase his tail, it would be more entertaining and equally as informative as your long winded diatribes.
Your response that it has to do with sexually stimulating someone and orgasm is finally a straight answer to the fundamental question, or at least the question that I was asking (forgive me if you did every say something to that effect in subsequent replies, I don't think I've read the complete thread)

That is the first time you directly asked. I answered his first question directly, but it didn't work for him. His problem was that my answers didn't qualify as sexual intercourse to him. My problem is that I don't think his definition of sexual intercourse is correct. When I addressed this, he ignored it, but am I wrong to think that we need to define sexual intercourse in a meaningful way before we define lesbian sexual intercourse?

I assumed that he had a reason for defining the term the way he does, but it doesn't make sense to me, so I presented my argument. If I wanted to be authoritative, I would have just quoted the dictionary at him, but again, I assumed there was some supported logic behind his usage.

I will point out though, as someone smarter than me once said, if orgasm is part of it then there are hundreds of millions of biological mothers who have never had sex. Yes you said "intending," but lots of women go into it without that intention, and some men go into it without intending to have the woman orgasm.

I also said in the context of this thread. Context changes meaning. I think we can safely rule out reproductive sex when talking about lesbian sexual intercourse. I also didn't say that the intention of stimulating orgasm was mutual, if that addresses your concern.

Plus I believe it's possible to enjoy "sex" without an orgasm or intention of one, at least for women.

I agree with you, but that's a little like saying 'I enjoy playing soccer, but it doesn't matter if I win; I just love the game'. That may be true, but it doesn't eliminate the focus of the game -- if not one side tried to score and win, the game wouldn't happen. Likewise, if not at least one partner was trying to get themselves or their partner off, what the hell are they doing? Genital cuddling?

Of course it can be extended to oral sex, etc., but that's not what is commonly understood when someone says they had sex.

I'll admit, I don't understand the need for the word 'sex' to have a common meaning that is so specific. Like I said, terms vary in specificity. If someone says, "I saw a bird," I don't know exactly what they mean. I then ask "what kind of bird did you see?" and bam! problem solved. Why is it wrong to use the word sex that way?

Right...you were saying grinding in lesbians is equivalent to penetration in heteros - I'm just saying grinding in lesbians is equivalent to grinding, regardless of gender.

I misunderstood you, but you and I are placing emphasis on different things. I'm only placing any emphasis on the mechanism at play -- rubbing genitals against genitals to reach orgasm. If we are talking only about what people commonly call sex, then I'll concede the point -- you are right, and I am wrong.

When I made my tribadism statement, I clarified what I meant by sexual intercourse. It is intercourse, as in the interaction of two (or more) people that is sexual. I still stand by that.

Is that a very broad category? Broader than conventional use? Yes, but again, what's wrong with that? We created more specific terms to break it down. English needs some words to be broad and then further subdivided by more specific terminology. Sex is an activity. Oral sex is a more specific version of that activity. Cunna lingus is an even more specific division of that version.

If I need more specific details, we already have words for those details. I just need to ask for the specifics, and if that gets me punched in the face... then it probably wasn't any of my business.
There is an intense preoccupation with heterosexual penis in vagina sex in our society.

It is pretty much ignoring the vast complexity of sexuality to say that the only sex that matters is a penis in a vagina.

It's kind of ridiculous actually. Stat after stat shows that penetration of a penis in a vagina is not enough to get most women off most of the time. If I had lots of "sex" that never resulted in orgasm, why would that be considered true sex, whereas if other methods were used including perhaps penile penetration but not the primary form (or no penetration), and that led to orgasm that wouldn't be considered true sex?

So what if lesbians do not have one definable sex act? It doesn't really matter in the end, all that matters is that they give themselves and their partners sexual pleasure.

There are plenty of heterosexuals who had were sexual beings and sexually experimented and satisfied before they officially lost their virginity. The focus on the mechanics and need for one clear act seems like a bit of tunnel vision and a lack of understanding of sexuality as being complex.
You're defending something that needs no defense, my discussion was as innocent as a child asking the definition of a word. Why you're crusading this into my living room I have no idea. I am not trying to take away someones rights or make them feel like less of a person for doing something they prefer to do. I am simply trying to understand if lesbians have a universal understanding of "sex" or if it's just a vague term used for a variety of positions.

I am not preoccupied, the curiosity arose and I sought to find an answer. I have come to the conclusion that only in female on female relationships "sex" has multiple indications. That's not a bad thing, however that is the only answer I have come across.
My exact words: There is an intense preoccupation ... in society.

Did I say you in particular? No. I was just placing your question in its proper place in a misguided discourse in our society.

Let me explain why what the definition of what constitutes "the" sex act is is pretty pointless and meaningless. Do you think transgendered people don't have sex? Or how do they have sex? A trans-man? How about a trans woman? What about middlesex people? Do gay people and lesbian women never lose their virgnity? (And why would anal sex be the standard for men? I thought the reason virginity was valued historically in our society was most directly related to potential pregnancy.)

I didn't drag this into your living room, you're asking something and I gave you your answer, and why this is so, and why even the question is pretty meaningless even when you take the experience of heterosexuals and gay men as well as Lesbians.

Sorry I dragged you into this but there's a long problematic historical discourse that says that everything you do besides "sexual intercourse" doesn't count towards sexuality or that if you're of a certain sexual orientation and gender you can't "really" have sex.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 13 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service