The discussion here about the false link between homosexuality and pedophilia drifted into a debate about how different people define “gay,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual.”
I consider the first two words synonymous with primary or exclusive same-sex attraction, but obviously there is disagreement. But how do you define the words?
I welcome further discussion here about how we define and delineate the language of sexual orientation and behavior.
One groundbreaking book–I believe it was Society and the Healthy Homosexual–suggested that “homosexual” should be applied to all those who are sexually attracted to adults of the same sex. “Gay,” however, should be reserved for those who acknowledge their identity, who affirm it, and who accept that there is some connection between themselves and others in the same situation.
Thus I’d count as both homosexual and gay, but individuals still in the closet, “on the down low,” and otherwise not self-affirming, would be homosexuals, but not gay.
I like this distinction, but it’s not widely-used enough for me to be clear in using it. In the end, I tend to say “openly gay” for the affirming people, and “closeted” or something similar for the others.
What Mike and Jason have said makes sense to me. I’d just like to point out that “same-sex attraction” makes it sound as if all we’re talking about is who catches your eye from across a crowded bar. (I’m just speaking of the day-to-day connotation of the wording.) To me, the biggest distinction in a free society is whom you gravitate toward when seeking a mate. I know guys whose preference is pretty obviously for sex with men, but who genuinely feel that they’ve formed a mutually-sustaining social and emotional whole with their wives.
Oh, I guess I kind of left out the important part there. My point is that, while I don’t think most people would consider such men straight, exactly, you can’t flatly label them gay, either. And just calling them bisexual, for the sake of calling them something, strikes me as missing an important component, too. The main thing that makes me gay is that whenever I envisioned someone I’d be willing to drop everything to devote myself to–he lost his job, he got cancer, he was injured–it was a man. That’s the way all my faculties of looking after and being looked after are geared. Not that the sex doesn’t sweeten the deal, of course.
Hmm, I tend to distinguish “gay” from “homosexual” in two ways:
1) Homosexual to me means primary or exclusive attraction/orientation to the same sex, while “gay” to me also includes people who are close to evenly attracted to both sexes (but not, I suppose, people whose same sex experience or attraction is minor and incidental relative to their opposite sex attraction).
2) “Gay” means to me that you accept the orientation, and acting on it, as OK and positive. So people who are “ex-gay” or “living with a degree of same sex attraction” and trying to be celibate, or “on the down low” or any other form of not openly affirming themselves as gay, I don’t tend to class as gay, no matter how strong their orientation may be, or how many people of the same sex they are actually having sex with.
I’m not sure what to do with someone who prefers casual sex with one sex, but prefers to marry the other. Neither gay nor straight really seems to fit; I suppose for lack of a better word I’d say they’re bisexual, but I guess Sean’s right that that misses an important component.
I think there is a difference between “politically” gay – those people who identify as members of the gay community but are not necesarily homosexual, such as bisexuals and transexuals – and the more traditional definition of gay, which is really just a synonym for homosexual.
I don’t understand the confusion over individuals who sleep with both men and women – bisexual seems to be the term that fits best. What do you think is missing?
Lynn Gazis-Sax:
“I’m not sure what to do with someone who prefers casual sex with one sex, but prefers to marry the other. Neither gay nor straight really seems to fit; I suppose for lack of a better word I’d say they’re bisexual”
I might call that person an opportunist… 😉
I guess it’s the sharpness in which the people Sean describes seem to be distinguishing between how they relate to men and women. When I think “bisexual,” I think of someone who is both sexually and emotionally attracted to both sexes, who would both want to sleep with both sexes and would fall in love with both sexes. If someone’s really only using one sex for a roll in the hay, and reserving all emotional involvement for the other sex, it’s a little weird to me to use the same word as for someone who falls in love with both.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation. Maybe the guys Sean is describing really are attracted to men in all the usual ways, but simply chose to marry a woman (whom they are also fully attracted to). In which case, bisexual sounds like the right word.
I think this has been discussed on this forum before: one cannot conflate sex and love as being exactly the same thing. As other people have mentioned on this forum, it’s possible to fall in love with people regardless of their gender – all is required is, perhaps, a degree of physical attraction and social contact over a period of time.
[Note: I don’t think this is the heterosexual relationship the ex-gay movement is looking for. I just don’t make much distinction between romantic love and platonic love – I think both kinds of emotional attachment are one and the same thing, except one has a concious sexual dimension. On the other hand, I would argue that one cannot necesarily find anyone, male or female, sexually attractive (unless they are bisexual, of course).]
With the gentlemen in question, the unfortunate pressures placed upon them by their communities prevent them from forming the type of long-term contact required to form more loving relationships with receptive males. But, the sex drive seems to be there.
That said, in my experience bisexuals, whilst attracted to both genders, tend to be satisfied by sexual contact with one gender and do not necesarily need to seek out sex with members of one gender when they have been exclusively sleeping with the other gender. The need for these men to seek out male contact implies that they aren’t satisfied sexually by their spouses, possibly implying they aren’t bisexual and aren’t really experiencing heterosexual attraction.
Being gay or homosexual (take you pick) is not only just having sex but also wishing to form a life long partnership with someone.
The fact is, *ANYONE* coud have sex with a member of the same sex, studies have shown that the majority have had atleast *ONE* homosexual experience when young – that doesn’t instantly make them gay/homosexual because the necessary bond forming component is missing.
kaiwai: Being gay or homosexual (take you pick) is not only just having sex but also wishing to form a life long partnership with someone.
In my experience, you form bonds with everyone including friends, parents and lovers. I have yet to find a distinction between these types of relationships other than having or not having an element of sexual attraction.
The fact is, *ANYONE* coud have sex with a member of the same sex, studies have shown that the majority have had atleast *ONE* homosexual experience when young – that doesn’t instantly make them gay/homosexual because the necessary bond forming component is missing.
It’s never been a popular ideas, but I am of the opinion that the majority of the population is actually bisexual. I don’t know how else to explain the type of sexual contact you mention. Simply placing an additional, seemingly abitrary restriction that you have to have a “life long partnership” seems a little strange – so, gay men who prefer to be single aren’t really gay?
The problem is that, in both gay and straight communties, bisexuals have never been particularly vocal, their experiences never given much publicity if they are heard at all. Also, as I mentioned, bisexuals can often be satisfied solely with sex from one gender and, due to social constraints, would thus tend to settle into heterosexual relationships and therefore never figure in a head count.
My current thoughts are:
Homosexual is the larger umbrella for anyone in a same gender relationship;
Gay appears to be an emerging assignation to those who tend to be somewhat effeminate such as is advanced by media stereotypes;
And further,
Queer would be those who look to be distanced from the sterotype– however, ‘queer eye for the straight guy’ challenges that concept.
I’m beginning to think of sex, generally, as a type of pleasureable communication. Sexuality is a form of communicating. I’m a bit agnostic about the nature/nurture debate, but I think that understanding that sex communicates status, agression, play, love, etc, might give us some insight into what empirically happens when people are “playing” sexually.
The problems / discussions / have arisen since the consequences of sex – procreation – became divorced from property. Once the property relationships changed and invidivuals could more easily support themselves, sexual desire suddenly became separated from the cultural pressures of property relations. What people don’t recognize is that when people have been talking about sex, they have forgotten that it was assumed to communicate a kind of property relationship that, in today’s society, is optional.
I am a married mother of two. A teenage daughter and and 8 year old son. I have never had a homosexual encounter yet had many female friends with whom I am “free” with affection. I had what I believe was the normal exploration in adolecence with female friends. If I took time to examine, I could have questioned my direction, but I didn’t. I just thought that that’s what normal teenage girls did: explore. It was neither right or wrong; bad or good. It was just right at the time.
I now just sat at the table with my 14 year old daughter and her 14 year old female friend who both attend a performing arts school. They have told me of their numerous male “gay” friends. I asked “what makes them gay?” Have they had sex? With either male or female or both? They argued with me that you don’t need to have sex to know if you are gay – you just know. They proceeded to call me old (at 38!).
From my personal experience, at 14, exploration with the same sex if often a natural, comfortable experience. Not necessarily one way or another. Am I wrong? I know there is more to a relationship than sex. I’ve been married for over 15 years, but to me, it is the physical act that would define the term. I find many women attractive and beautiful. I find breasts fascinating in their differences yet I still enjoy sex with a man. What does that make me???
I would love some insight. Although I am “old” I am open to new ideas.
Cheryl
Cheryl, sounds to me like you’re mostly straight but you have a bit of a bisexual streak. IMO, you’re right to think of your teenage explorations as a natural, comfortable experience. Some people, like me, find out through those explorations that they’re homosexual (that is, attracted to the same sex to a much greater degree than the opposite sex); others, like my friend Shon, have the opposite result and confirm that they are heterosexual. Even thought it was another 3 years before I had my first sexual encounter, I knew I was gay, going so far as to tell my parents at 15-16.
That said, so long as you’re happy with your husband, and your attraction to women isn’t disrupting your life, just let yourself be happy and don’t worry about it.
Jason Kuznick discusses the question, “Was Alexander gay?”
As in his comment above, he clearly separates “gay” and “homosexual.”
But self-identified “gay” celibates may be only marginally affirming of same-sex attraction. And “gay” conservatives often oppose what are widely assumed to be “gay” goals — such as same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, antidiscrimination laws, and comprehensive sex education.
Should some groups currently calling themselves gay be convinced not to? And can progressives be talked into allowing sexual orientation to remain separate from socialist or Green Party ideologies?
You’re talking about two groups that aren’t known for their self-criticism, there, Mike. Celibate homosexuals seem determined to believe that we all live lives that are as unhappy as theirs were when they were active (not the kind of attitude one associates with serene conviction in a new belief system, but that’s their lookout). How anyone would go about making the point that they ought to use a word that doesn’t purport to identify them with everyone else of the same orientation is not clear to me.
And the sorts of socialists and Greens who believe in the canonizing effects of “oppression” will probably always think we somehow belong on their side. It seems to me to be more important to persuade traditionalists that we’re not all about smashing institutions.
As an environmentalist and a bit of a socialist myself I’ve never thought gay rights were a Green Party or “socialist” (the word seems largely misunderstood and misinterpreted, covering as it does a wide range of political perspectives) issue solely. For example, in my country the right-wing Conservative Party has a strong gay rights movement within its moderate wing.
Certainly, gay rights have received a lot of support from socialist and environmentalist parties across the world and, considering all the work that has been done on our behalf for equal rights by these group, it seems a little un-grateful and churlish to simply dismiss them. Let us not forget that without the left-wing’s promotion of tolerance, acceptance and equality we would not have the rights and freedoms we enjoy today.
Should some groups currently calling themselves gay be convinced not to?
People are free to refer to themselves as they wish, but I think promoting the idea that people should start calling themselves something else other than gay just to make some sort of political point would start a dangerous fragmentation of the gay community, particularly at a time when we need mutual support and unity.
Because the very idea that homosexuality is a new thing–the very idea I’ve spelled out above–comes directly from Michel Foucault, the archvillain of postmodernism. Foucault was an openly gay man who died of AIDS and who championed sexual liberation for as long as he lived. He also favored Maoism, which says as much as the layman needs to know about his thinking. Conservatives who are suddenly taking up Foucault’s ideas to delegitimize homosexuality must be desperate indeed. Of course, they may not know the trap that they’ve stumbled into.
Jason churlishly and ignorantly dismisses the works of this great man in one simplisitic straw man argument – for example, whilst one might not agree with Maoism, Foucault’s opinions on this matter do not necesarily colour his opinions on sexuality. Whilst it’s true that Foucault considered homosexuality to be a modern construct, he differs widely from the various homophobic theists in that he also held heterosexuality and gender to also be social constructs.
Fundamentalists generally hold that homosexuality is a construct, muddling gender and sex (both inextricably linked in their minds), and thus heterosexuality is the One True Way. Of course, for all his glossing over of details, Jason is correct in that defining homosexuality as a social construct opens up the possibility of leveling similar criticism at heterosexuality. This is only a problem if one assume these people care about the logical consistency of their arguments.
Ricardo, I dare say I have probably read more Foucault than anyone on this forum.
I know his arguments, and the point of bringing up his Maoism was only to show how strange it was for conservatives to be making a Foucauldean argument. I’ve expanded on this point a bit in an update to the post in question.
As to Foucault himself, I find many of his ideas interesting and useful, particularly his work on governmentality and enlightenment. I find his work on madness, sexuality, and the prison quite often to be overly reductive–and always troublingly illiberal.
Being hetrosexual i never really considered it, really other peoples sexual preferences are not of my concernand i dont generally ‘label’ people either however i do (subconciously or not) use homosexual to refer to the persons sexual preference. However i would have used gay to refer to the (Personality is too broad a word) acting gay (being a person who acts camp, having know people who were by my definition gay however not openly homosexual).
People can be homosexual and gay or hetrosexual and gay (i suppose i lean more towards the old definition of the word than using gay to define sexual preference, close to ‘happy’ but maybe closer to acting exessively happy)
just thought id add my 2 cents..