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: 2659

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"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.
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.
I was just looking for a definition, that is all. There is nothing pointless in having a word defined, and all you had to say is that for sex as lesbians there is no definition.
@Kris, you are simply not going to get a neat, precise definition for sex. It's totally subjective. For some, simply thinking about any loosely defined sexual act, is the same as having sex. There is no "universal understanding of sex."
There is a universal understanding of heterosexual sex. For homosexuals sex becomes a lot more vague and into the realm of "Whatever works".
Christ. I'm surprised Bill Clinton isn't here debating how anything but a single type of act is considered "sex", therefore he is not guilty of perjury.

Is sex really that narrowly defined? I wonder if people would think the same if their girlfriend were out not having sex while some guy performed some amazing oral on her?
Words have definitions for a reason Reggie, without that every word is open for translation and means nothing. I don't care what lesbians do which they refer to as sex, as long as I know whatever it is, is than we can have some definition.


I find gays to be interesting in this manner, in some respects they are quite outward and prideful with themselves. In others they shy away and say things like "what does it matter what we call sex". It should not be offensive that you need a plastic toy to have sex as lesbians, I just wanted to know if you call that sex or if you have to write out the full act to explain what went down.

If "sex" to a lesbian is
A.) Mutual masturbation
B.) Oral sex / mutual oral sex
C.) Sex with a strap on
D.) Manual masturbation
E.) Any or all of the above and more

Than for a lesbian to say "I had sex last night" is a terribly non descriptive statement whereas for gay males and hetero couples it's a very succinct statement.
Words have definitions for a reason Reggie, without that every word is open for translation and means nothing. I don't care what lesbians do which they refer to as sex, as long as I know whatever it is, is than I can have my definition.

Well, no shit. But anyone familiar with language understands just how ambiguous it is. Every word really is open for translation or interpretation. Especially as we argue finer points. You consider sex to be very narrowly defined. Great! But what do YOU call all the stuff in between hugs and sex?
Affection, adoration, etc. What else would you call them? Lesser intimate acts?

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service