Why enjoying sex with men doesn't make you homosexual
September 23rd 2006 09:46
-- 1. Obvious answer: because you're female, or hemaphrodite, etc.
-- 2. Because it's inter-species sex.
-- 3. Because maybe it's just fantasy sex. And the implications of fantasies are ambiguous. Rape fantasies don't necessarily mean you want to rape or be raped. So maybe the presence of men in your fantasies doesn't necessarily mean you want to (or are able to) get off with men.
-- 4. Because you might not love men. -- The word "homosexual" seems to group together love and sex. Whereas it's often the case that a woman can fall in love without women without being physically attracted to them.
-- 5. Because you might enjoy sex with men without really being attracted to them. There's plenty of foods I enjoy eating that I'm unlikely to select from a menu.
-- 6. Because you might be temporarily attracted. It might just be a "stage", or drugs or hypnotism.
-- 7. Because you might enjoy the dominance/humiliation/humilia ting, regardless of gender. And it might also happen that males tend to be more fun to humiliate (and this might have nothing to do with their maleness).
-- 8. Because maybe you just enjoy the sensation (for instance, the sensation of giving or receiving anal). After all: I might enjoy apple pie, but this needn't make me a fruitsexual; male homosexuals frequently enjoy vaginas; prisoners fuck each other out of necessity; and it's probably mind-blowing for most men to have their prostate stimulated by a dildo up the butt while simultaneously getting fellatio.
-- 9. Because you might not identify as a homosexual, even if everything else applies.
So I'm sort of saying that there's lots of facets to the concept of "homosexual". And, depending on which you think are necessary, a man who enjoys fucking men might or might not qualify.
But perhaps this is the wrong way to look at things.
Perhaps classifications like "homosexual" and "bisexual" will turn out to be inadequate on examination, glossing over too many distinctions.
Or perhaps they will turn out to be meaningless, based on essentialist notions of "masculine", "feminine", whereas what's found in nature is degrees and clusters of qualities.
-- 2. Because it's inter-species sex.
-- 3. Because maybe it's just fantasy sex. And the implications of fantasies are ambiguous. Rape fantasies don't necessarily mean you want to rape or be raped. So maybe the presence of men in your fantasies doesn't necessarily mean you want to (or are able to) get off with men.
-- 4. Because you might not love men. -- The word "homosexual" seems to group together love and sex. Whereas it's often the case that a woman can fall in love without women without being physically attracted to them.
-- 5. Because you might enjoy sex with men without really being attracted to them. There's plenty of foods I enjoy eating that I'm unlikely to select from a menu.
-- 6. Because you might be temporarily attracted. It might just be a "stage", or drugs or hypnotism.
-- 7. Because you might enjoy the dominance/humiliation/humilia ting, regardless of gender. And it might also happen that males tend to be more fun to humiliate (and this might have nothing to do with their maleness).
-- 8. Because maybe you just enjoy the sensation (for instance, the sensation of giving or receiving anal). After all: I might enjoy apple pie, but this needn't make me a fruitsexual; male homosexuals frequently enjoy vaginas; prisoners fuck each other out of necessity; and it's probably mind-blowing for most men to have their prostate stimulated by a dildo up the butt while simultaneously getting fellatio.
-- 9. Because you might not identify as a homosexual, even if everything else applies.
***
So I'm sort of saying that there's lots of facets to the concept of "homosexual". And, depending on which you think are necessary, a man who enjoys fucking men might or might not qualify.
But perhaps this is the wrong way to look at things.
Perhaps classifications like "homosexual" and "bisexual" will turn out to be inadequate on examination, glossing over too many distinctions.
Or perhaps they will turn out to be meaningless, based on essentialist notions of "masculine", "feminine", whereas what's found in nature is degrees and clusters of qualities.
| 150 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
If men having sex with men is termed as homosexual thats an essentialist definition( I am omitting out your cheeky first item here). What is non-essentialist definition of homosexual? Abseiling from Mount Everestor having sex with chimnpanzees? Because there are some homosexuals I tell you who would want to do it. Does that make it a part of definition?
This mightily looks like an attempt to have sex with men and not be branded a homosexual. Have cake and eat it .
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I don't remember the Republic reference.
About the definition... Well I don't think that "sex with someone of your own gender" is all there is to "homosexual" (if this is what you're suggesting). Say you were raped, or just did it once, as an experiment -- I don't think, without more, you'd count as homosexual.
I do think the other sorts of qualities I've mentioned are often thought to be necessary. Ie, one might argue that a homosexual is someone whose nature is to be sexually and romantically attracted to someone of their own gender (regardless of whether they've actually had any sex at all).
As to what makes something part of a definition... This is a huge question, but I'll tell you what I reckon.
Some words are "cluster words". That is, there are lots of qualiies umbrellaed under them, and if an object satisfies sufficient of those qualities, then the cluster word can apply to it.
Other words are "criterion" words. That is, the absence or presence of one or a number of qualities determines the applicability of the word.
And there are words that are sometimes cluster, and sometimes criterion, depending on context.
"Male" I think is often used as if there were a male essence criterion.
"Homosexual" I think has a number of criteria. As to the complete list, I'm unsure. I'd want to allow variation between linguistic communities, but I'd suggest that the ideas I touch on above are often thought to be necessary.
Perhaps a basic guide to telling whether, within your own usage, a given quality is a criterion or not, is to use the "but not" test. If it's sensical to say, "Homosexual, but doesn't like white socks", then liking white socks isn't a criterion of homosexual.
One of my claims was that the concept "homosexual" might be dependent on the concepts "male" and "female". So, if the latter presume essences, and those essences don't exist, then "homosexual" is similarly problematized.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Amen. There are no essences. But male and female are concepts dervied by us by retaining a quality not an essence (gender or sex) and omitting many others. I
Now what this gender we call male should be associated with culturally, sexually and conceptually is another question. This leads us to the related but different concept of masculine.
Now what you say might hold water for masculinity and femininity. Is homosexuality (having sex with your own sex) not masculline or not femininine? That's a different issue. But if you are a man and if enjoy have sex with other men, then you are a homosexual.
With proper qualifications ofcourse. If youa re raped, thats something imposed on u. But if you do it wiht ur own consent, then its different.
Now in real world many people might not be "pure" homosexuals. As you they might just experiment, they might have sex in a threesome or an orgy or any of the other possiblities. But that will apply it to the particular instance involved.
Your post started with some possibilities like these that wouldnt fit the pattern and then went on disassociate the concept of homosexuality from its chief criterion or "essence".
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Very briefly (rushing off to nightshift at the moment), I think one thing your post brings out is that there is a difference between homosexual acts, and homosexual people.
As to the former, I haven't properly thought about it. (My post was mainly about the latter.)
As to the latter, I think that the proper qualifications would include such things as it not just being about the sensation, and other ideas I've listed.
To put this last point crudely, it might be the case that, to a particular person, a hole is a hole, and they're unfussed about where exactly to stick it. The hole could belong to a male, a female, or to apple pie.
Now, this sort of case I take as an example that you might enjoy having sex with men (that is, with holes that belong to men), but you might not be homosexual (because it's not the maleness of the hole that's the attarction).
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I've been thinking about your comments, on and off (mostly off), all night.
Haven't collected my thoughts properly, but this is the main line of my thinking so far.
Something I should have realized earlier -- in my post on Shinto, there's a paragraph about "Mary is a comedian".
"Mary is a comedian" can have two interpretations.
You could be simply describing her actions. Mary is a comedian because she tells jokes Kasulis calls this an "existentialist" description.
Or you could be commenting on her nature. Mary tells jokes because she is comedian. Kasulis calls this an "essentialist" description.
Now, when a man is raped by a man, is the act a homosexual act or not? And is the victim made into a homosexual or not?
What I'm currently thinking (do you agree?) is that the act both is and isn't homosexual; the victim both is made into a homosexual and isn't. -- It depends on whether "homosexual" is an existentialist or an essentialist description, and I think BOTH are in use.
"Existentially" -- any same-gendered sex is homosexual. Anyone who engages in same-gendered sex is a homosexual.
"Essentially" -- only those people who engage in same-gendered sex because of their nature are homosexual.
And I think it's the essentialist concept that I was working with in my post.
Going back to the issue of enjoyment.
If you enjoy the sex, does that mean that you're "essentially" homosexual?
One reason I'd suggest "No", is that I think almost all sex is enjoyable, whether with a man or not.
Here's a digression. It's not really on point, but I think it's cute:
I watched a movie yesterday called "The Book of Revelation". It's a controversial new Australian film. A man gets abducted by three women, who do various things to him (I think it's fair to say), and who later release him.
Upon his release, no one takes him seriously. He says to the police, "I'd like to report a crime. A friend of mine was abducted by three women." And the police sarcastically say, "Poor bastard", and laugh.
Is it ever possible for a woman to rape a man (without penetrating him)?
Well, one way to say "Yes" is to distinguish the body from the will. Just because your body responds, doesn't mean the act isn't rape.
A friend of mine, PA, adds that this is part of the guilt of the rape victim. Control of their body is taken from them. -- They might even feel pleasure, purely for bodily reasons, even though they're horrified and disgusted, and even though any small pleasure is infinitely dwarfed by pain.
So, the response of the body isn't enough to make something not-rape. And I'd suggest that, in similar fashion, the response of the body isn't enough to make a man homosexual.
Just because you get an erection when another male applies pressure to your penis, or just because anal sex releases endorphins in your brain, doesn't necessarily mean you're gay.
Ie: enjoyment of an act that is existentially homosexual doesn't necessarily make you an essentialist homosexual.
In this sense, I think the claim of my title is trivially true.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Agredd there are lot of bordelrine cases where the term homosexual might not fit suitably. But that doesnt mean that just becuase the term can't be strectched onto include every kind of instance that you find, you can't shrink the term to mean something less than what it suggests. That would procustean way of conept making.
If a man somebody is raped by a man, you'd say exactly that he is raped by a man. The act of rape neither makes him into a homo nor unmakes him. It has nothing to do with his sexuality.
The matter is slightly more complex if he enjoys that rape. Then, he shld ask himself; Does he like sex withmen but not being forced or does he like being force doesn't amtter whether its men or women? Answering such questions might eventually lead him to cleaim whether he is a homosexual or not.
The point is a man is a homosexual or not by what he is, not by by what somebody else does to him( in some case, this might start him on the course).
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the interesting reply!
If you don't mind continuing this discussion a bit longer, I'm going to make a clarification first, then ask some questions (I don't feel I quite grasp your position yet).
To clarify something about my blog entry, it seems to me that I was working from both ends of a table, and that I wasn't brave enough to try to make the two ends meet.
On the one hand, I started by assuming that "homosexual" was a workable concept, and I tried to find borderline cases where I thought it arguable that enjoying same-gendered sex doesn't make you a homosexual.
On the other hand, at the end of the post, I made the suggestion that maybe it's not a workable concept after all. "But perhaps this is the wrong way to look at things…" The tentative suggestion here is something like "eliminativism" in philosophy of mind -- where you say that mental discourse is "folk beliefs", and you want to discard talk about minds (preferably for some better way of talking about things). There might be any number of reasons why it's desirable to discard the to-be-eliminated discourse (might be false, misleading, ambiguous, confusing, inefficient, etc).
Now, I take it that you object to both of these strategies.
So three questions at this point: Is that a sensical description of my blog entry? Is that how you understood my blog entry? And is it true that you object to both strategies?
I think you are confusing concepts with cases where the concepts we have no longer work properly. When you define a conept called red you cannot show up a color that is in between red and orange and say this is both red and non red at the some moment and therefore, wel the concept of red is not clear. That is thew ay to confusion.
Okay, are you saying that words like red are always clear? Or are you saying that those areas between red and orange are simply areas where the question of using the concept doesn't arise (the concept is not supposed to do that sort of job)? Or are you saying that colour words are sometimes unclear, but that sometimes-unclarity doesn't mean you should "eliminate" them?
Agredd there are lot of bordelrine cases where the term homosexual might not fit suitably. But that doesnt mean that just becuase the term can't be strectched onto include every kind of instance that you find, you can't shrink the term to mean something less than what it suggests. That would procustean way of conept making.
Is this a fair paraphrase? -- "If there's any reason at all for applying a concept, then it is correct to apply that concept."
If a man somebody is raped by a man, you'd say exactly that he is raped by a man. The act of rape neither makes him into a homo nor unmakes him. It has nothing to do with his sexuality… The point is a man is a homosexual or not by what he is, not by by what somebody else does to him( in some case, this might start him on the course).
I find your first two sentences quite persuasive actually. So when I suggested before that being raped might make you homosexual, I should probably retract that suggestion.
But I do think there's a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual people. I took it that you in fact agreed with me! -- and that this was the sort of idea you were appealing to when you wrote "As you they might just experiment, they might have sex in a threesome or an orgy or any of the other possiblities. But that will apply it to the particular instance involved." -- I read you as saying that you could call the particular instance homosexual, or could call the person homosexual for the duration of the instance.
I guess there's two things I'm unclear about. Firstly, whether you in fact do agree with the distinction between homosexual act and homosexual people. Secondly, whether you think the word "homosexual" should only be used of someone's sexuality (rape doesn't make a person homosexual because "It has nothing to do with his sexuality").
To put this another way… When you talk of sexuality, are you talking of some deep-seated part of a person, like their personality or intellect or eyesight ("a man is a homosexual or not by what he is")? And if this is what you mean by sexuality, and if the word "homosexual" is only appropriate in matters of sexuality, then can the word apply where there's only choice (for instance, once-off homosexual sex just for the hell of it -- where the choice doesn't come from is-ness, from a person's nature, their sexuality)?
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
But there two issues here: what's a concept mean? And given an instance, how would you apply the concept you have?
whether you say acts or people, you are still modifying them with the same adjective and that's homosexual. so distinguish between these has nothing to do with the adjective but to the difference between "acts" and "people."
Now take any borderline case, like having one-off sex affair with men. WHat'd this mean? You'd describe that the man had a homsexual affair once but he's not a practising homosexual. Does he harbour hmosexual leanings or does he not have them? It depends on that particular man.
now there might ne instances where this might not be so easy as in the last para.
As you said you worked from two diiferent strategies. Or as I said earlier,
Your post started with some possibilities like these that wouldnt fit the pattern and then went on disassociate the concept of homosexuality from its chief criterion or "essence".
Now are they two strategies? I neither agree or disagree with those strategies. I just pointed out to you that you start from one position and then use that probably to insinuate the next one. use one strategy to implant another. actually a single strategy.
thats how i read ur blog. u started with borderline cases where homsexual wouldnt apply and then made it look like as if the concept homsexual wasnt a workable concept. correct me if i am wrong.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Okay, this will be the closing one from me, and then you can have the last word on the subject if you like.
Thanks very much for taking all this time to talk about these issues with me (I know I personally have spent a lot of time thinking and writing about this). And thank you for the thoughtfulness of your remarks -- I've gained a lot from you.
Will respond to your comment piece by piece again.
But there two issues here: what's a concept mean? And given an instance, how would you apply the concept you have?
What is a concept? -- I'm going to chicken out and put this issue on the backburner. A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink on it. But hopefully it's not necessary to answer this question in order to resolve the homosexuality issue.
Given an instance, how do you apply a concept? -- In your previous post, you talk about Procustean beds. When one meets a borderline case, does one extend the concept or shrink it (or does one throw away the concept completely)? I think you suggest that one should always lengthen the bed.
I don't think I follow a consistent rule; I think there's a lot of factors that influence me in any particular case. But maybe I have a tendency towards simply keeping the bed as is, simply recognizing the borderline, and not trying to lengthen or shorten.
So if I'm faced with "So is this guy a homosexual, or isn't he?"), I'd chicken shit out, would say, "There's arguments both ways"; the answer might be clear from one or another speaker's perspective, but, collectively speaking, it is a borderline, it is unclear.
whether you say acts or people, you are still modifying them with the same adjective and that's homosexual. so distinguish between these has nothing to do with the adjective but to the difference between "acts" and "people."
Well, I'd claim that there is an important difference in the word "homosexual" when you apply it to acts and to people -- there are two meanings -- and that one shouldn't be misled by the fact that the same sound-image is used in both contexts. The difference is Mary is a comedian -- "existentialist" vs "essentialist" -- description of behaviour vs description of nature.
So the point of distinguishing acts and people is, I suppose, mainly to be clearer about the basic claim I'm making, which is that it's possible to engage in an (existentially) homosexual act, but not be an (essentially) homosexual person. (And, if one didn't distinguish the two meanings, it might be difficult to express this idea.)
So, to me, the basic question is the conditions under which it is correct to use the word in its essentialist guise (and I'd claim that the conditions for existentialist usage are different from those for essentialist usage).
Now take any borderline case, like having one-off sex affair with men. WHat'd this mean? You'd describe that the man had a homsexual affair once but he's not a practising homosexual. Does he harbour hmosexual leanings or does he not have them? It depends on that particular man.
If I'm reading you right, I think this is a very perceptive comment, and expressed more clearly than I could have. (And, if you know anything about Russell's "On Denoting", you're approaching in the same ingenious way that Strawson did in his reply to Russell.)
I take it that your point is this: that in this particular borderline case, we don't lengthen the bed. We don't charge forward and say "He's a homosexual". Rather we say, "He had a homosexual affair", etc.
If this is your point, I think we're in agreement. And I think that here at least, even if we disagree elsewhere, you agree that enjoying homosexual sex doesn't necessarily make you "a homosexual". When we're tempted to apply the concept in this borderline case, tempted to say "He's a homosexual", we sense the difficulties, so instead of lengthening the bed we catch ourselves, and apply the adjective to the affair rather than the person.
As you said you worked from two diiferent strategies. Or as I said earlier,
Your post started with some possibilities like these that wouldnt fit the pattern and then went on disassociate the concept of homosexuality from its chief criterion or "essence".
Yes! It was partly that comment of yours that made me want to spell it out, clarify the two strategies.
I quoted you in draft replies (because I've written a few drafts of all these replies
Now are they two strategies? I neither agree or disagree with those strategies. I just pointed out to you that you start from one position and then use that probably to insinuate the next one. use one strategy to implant another. actually a single strategy.
thats how i read ur blog. u started with borderline cases where homsexual wouldnt apply and then made it look like as if the concept homsexual wasnt a workable concept. correct me if i am wrong.
I think this is a fair description. I mean, it's fair to use the word "insinuate" (with, for instance, the possible implication that there was something rhetorical rather than logical going on), and it's fair to view the two pieces as allied into a single strategy -- the greyness of the borderlines (in the first half) was insinuated to support the proposal of elimination of the term (in the second half).
But if I wanted to try to make logical sense, I think I would have to admit that there were two strategies that didn't meet in the middle. There's a jump and a start again. The greyness might in some sense count towards elimination-worthiness (if we want all our language to be crystal clear), but it doesn't add up to the conclusion that we must junk the word.
And, if asked, I would say that "homosexual" is a useful word.
To me, colour words (red, orange) do have genuine inclarity -- it's genuinely unclear whether the halfway point counts as red. But I wouldn't conclude that we should junk the word, because the fact is, "red" is sufficient for most of our purposes. When we want to be more precise, we can talk about exact numbers on a colour chart, or frequencies of light. But it's not as if the naked human eye could apply those sorts of categories; and it's not as if vagueness is necessarily a bad thing.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
But, epistemology is something I enjoy, so thanks for this discussion. I think i know a bit of that subject but i havent read agreat deal of books on it. so , havent read anyof the authors you mentioned except russel but then his history and not technical stuff. i'm jsut an amatuer. still it was great discussing with you even though i dont know what we achived after all the disscussion. discussion maybe!
Comment by Damo
However semantics is a funny thing and often used to describe a person based upon their behaviour. If for example I joined the Communist Party to score with some hot girl does that still make me Communist. Within a day some would say yes and other say your no committed enough to be a true Commo.
The question of whether someone is what they do is very semantic. Eg: 'Johnny is a thief because he stole an apple', does not equate to 'Johnny is a thief forever because he stole once'.
Same argument with 'Simon is Homosexual because of his behaviour'. What we really mean is that Simon is participating in Homosexual behaviour and practices. We give him the lable of being Homosexual out of gramatic convenience only. Writing a sentence to describe Simon is a lot easy when there is a single word to describe him.
I wonder if Oxford University Press have this sort of argument whenever they bring out a new edition of the Dictionary?
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Damo
This where my whole argument falls down like a house of cards. Just a second as I go look up my Pocket Oxford.
Nope, no answer.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Damo -- it took me a while to realize that this post was really about language, not sex.
I'd personally argue that "homosexual" both is and isn't a shortcut in the way you describe.
Where it might particularly not be is in the case of people who "identify" as homosexuals (whereas few people identify as apple- or orange-eaters).
Dear Cibby -- I personally think prison is borderline. "Homosexual" might be a correct usage for people and acts, and might not be.
Apparently, a new word in is "freak":
-- "So you have a heterosexual marriage, but you enjoy fucking men. What the hell are you doing?"
-- "Don't label and judge me, man. I'm not gay or straight. I'm a freak."
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
I think you're onto the difference between essential and accident. Can you tag a concept(and every concept is derived from an essential) to what might be an accidental and not essential characteristic of another entity?
I think there is no problem when you take homosexual alone or man alone but when you attach those two you produce a new idea? What if essential characterisitc of the homosexual is only accidental behavior or characterisitc of man?
Can we then attach those two together and pass off the "essentialist" nature of the adjective to the "existential participation of the noun?
Unfortunately I am not aware of good philosophies on this problem. I know Russell is all about relationships, but I don't think he talked baout these kinds of relationships.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Personally, I'd make a distinction between "cluster" words and "criterion" words, the difference being that the former sort of concept is ALL "accidents".
John Searle talks about cluster concepts; and Wittgenstein talks about "family resemblance". Kripke, in contrast, talks about "rigid designators".
Can one tag what I'm calling a criterion word to any other word? Well, I reckon so. I'd claim that an example of this is the ability to call boys "feminine", even if you think there's some criterion, like a Y chromosome, that females must have.
I'm not entirely sure how to link this back to the homosexuality discussion. Perhaps you could help?
Comment by Leon
Music love fight for peace
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the friend invite! And you deserve a medal for making it this far (can't believe you read all the comments -- I wouldn't have).
Okay, language vs concepts -- this is a tricky issue. Some people would say that a concept is a thing in the head. But others would argue that a concept is a very linguistic entity -- it's what you commit yourself to when you use a noun. This is a long and involved discussion; won't try to detail it here, but you're right to bring up the issue.
The stuff about biological difference is tricky. I mean, the word homosexual was in use before people realized there might be a biological difference (and I suspect the issue still isn't clear -- is there really a gay gene?).
I'd suggest that having gay sex might make you a homosexual if you keep doing it. But your idea does go to the centre of all this talk about existentialist vs essentialist and cluster vs criterion. And it's the sort of issue, incidentally, that Hillary Putnam wrote about in his famous (and short) paper on meanings -- he thought that water had to have the chemical formula H20... Just mentioning the name so you can look it up if you're curious.
And for a day job -- I do lots of odds and ends. Mainly, I do data entry -- I'm a typist. And I occasionally pick up other work -- being an extra on TV commercials, occasionaly editing job, mystery shopping...
Thanks very much for your kind words!
Comment by Anonymous
"About the definition... Well I don't think that "sex with someone of your own gender" is all there is to "homosexual" (if this is what you're suggesting). Say you were raped, or just did it once, as an experiment -- I don't think, without more, you'd count as homosexual." Rape is NOT SEX and doesn't belong in a discussion about consentual sex.
Interspecies? UGH! :c) (had to be said...)
The need to define homosexuality as something else or as a gray area may make some feel better about their sexual preferences. However, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, so why try to define it as something other than what it is, two people of the same gender having sex together? There are few things in our world that are as simple as that...we should embrace it! Great post...well done.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think what you're saying is important -- you question what's at stake in a definition, and you implicitly say that, most of the time, it's fairly clear when to apply the label "homosexual".
Just one comment on what's at stake either in defining the term rigidly, or in arguing for grey..
Well, I suppose one reason I wrote this post was I was trying, however unsuccessfully, to unsettle people's complacency about words. There's something demeaning, in my opinion, and disgustingly self-assured, in labelling. I probably mentioned this above, but I also feel a bit funny about being labelled as being a certain Myers-Briggs personality type.
Another reason I wrote this post was to question the adequacy of the concepts, and to point to the possibility of new ones. And I think this is an important thing to do once in a while -- to realize how contingent, how one-among-many, is our system of thought.
Comment by Anonymous
I have nothing to add other than my understanding of what I am.
I have enjoyed sex with my own gender but I do not consider myself homosexual. I'm not bisexual. I suppose in the eyes of society I am not heterosexual but I don't live my life according to what other people see.
I suppose if I have to, I choose to call myself pansexual, attracted to sensuality and sexuality in all (ethical and legal) forms.
Maybe not interspecies! but I understand the reality behind the fantasy. It's like the rape fantasy. It's not real.
And because this is a philosophy blog, I'm sure the question of what is ethical and legal will come up.
Ethical and legal forms of sex...I like to fuck and be fucked, I like to make love and be loved...I don't fuck minors, I don't fuck married people, I don't fuck animals -although some have been pretty wild- and I don't fuck with minds.
Perhaps if I was capable of falling 'in love' with a person of my gender I would consider myself bisexual.
But the thought repulses me.
Emotionally I am strictly heterosexual.
Physically, sensual awareness grabs me.
Mentally, attraction has no periphery.
In answer to your titular question, no, enjoying sex with men...your own gender... does not make you a homosexual.
Biology does.
Sex is a chemical reaction.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think your comment raises a number of ideas. For instance,
-- the suggestion that words like "homosexual" might be simply inadequate and an artificial socially-imposed categorisation;
-- the tripartite division of the emotional, the physical, and the mental;
-- and the idea that what's important to these words is how one sees oneself -- how one identifies.
Some ethical and legal issues surrounding sex (but not many) do get discussed in other posts on this blog.
My personal opinion is that sex doesn't raise any distinctive ethical issues. For instance, there's not, for me, any question of right or wrong in which gender you sleep with, or how many people you sleep with. And this was the ancient Greek view -- sex was mainly a preference matter, not a moral matter.
On my view, child sex, bestiality, necrophilia, etc don't raise any issues that aren't covered by general ethical considerations of harm and happiness. For instance, what's basically wrong about child sex is the absence of consensuality, and the possibility of physical or psychological harm -- but lack of consensuality and physical and mental harm are wrong in pretty much any context.
Comment by Anonymous
You have a very interesting outlook.
lack of consensuality and physical and mental harm are wrong in pretty much any context.
My physical and my mental actions differ in that mentally I have no barriers. What I could not do physically - my mind can and will because no one gets hurt, mentally nor physically (unless it's part of it), emotions don't come in to play and everything is consensual, even the getting raped by man, woman and beast! But 2 conditions; they're all alive and they're all over the age of consent...
BTW, metrosexuals...what do they fuck?!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
This tends to be my attitude. And also Jay Wiseman's attitude -- he had a fetish for rope play, and was initially worried that he was turning into a serial killer. But now he seems to believe, as do most in the BDSM scene, that there's a distinction between fantasies and action. After all, people fantasize about killing their boss all day, but this doesn't seem to make them more likely to do it.
There's empirical evidence to support this distinction between fantasies and action. I've been planning to write a post on it for some time. But I doubt I could do better than this Psychology Today article.
On the other hand, there's been a long history of people who think they can shape themselves through various mental practices. This is a common idea in Eastern thinking (Buddhism, Shinto), in latter Greco-Roman thought (for instance, in Stoicism), and in early Christian thought (seeing that it grew out of Stoicism). Foucault writes about these practices.
Via the Christian tradition, this has become a modern idea that one should forbid oneself from thinking about certain things.
And this belief in the relation between thought and action is also a common idea, in a different form, among motivational speakers, NLP practitioners, etc...
No idea. But maybe they get fucked by advertising companies and designer labels...