“Can you explain why you don't identify with being bisexual? Bisexual women are usually those that are attracted to both sexes. Do you consider yourself straight? Is it just the label you're against? I ask out of curiosity and a need to understand, not out of a need to be difficult.”- anonymous
Labels shmables. I am so sick of hearing that thrown around. Why do folks insist on using it. What you are calling a label and have been calling labels for I do not know how many articles now are descriptive terms to describe ones behavior, appearance, beliefs what have you. These are not labels they are adjectives,
Labels ar:e A label is a piece of paper, polymer, cloth, metal, or other material affixed to a container or article, on which is printed a legend, information concerning the product, addresses, etc. A label may also be printed directly on the container or article.
I have not stamped anything on anyone’s head or my own and do not intend too because people change everyday you cannot “label” or “brand” a person.
If you are a black male, guess what that’s what you are. You may be a whole lot more adjectives than that but when you give description you can bet black and male will be included. This is a way of describing ones appearance. Would you prefer me say he was the color of coffee with a hint of milk and a sperm giver? To say EKY is a homosexual male means that he is gay and guess what he is gay. Am I labeling an orange by calling it an orange? To call a descriptor a label is to give the word a negative connotation where one was not intended. Also a label is a very limiting term as it is used to describe an entire product in one fell swoop in order to sell it, show its limitations, dangers and qualities. You can never do that with a human being. If I were to label myself as bi-sexual that would be where that label ends. That is all that I am. A label is all inclusive so in order to label myself properly for sale there would be pages and pages of adjectives. To me to call an adjective a “label” is the ultimate sign of a closed mind.
So to answer the question, no, I do not consider myself bisexual. Does this mean I have never or will never be with a woman? Well, no, because as most of you know now, I have been, many times and probably will again. Here is where I separate myself from being described as such:
A homosexual male is capable of being in an exclusive relationship with a male. A lesbian is capable of being in an exclusive relationship with a woman. A bi-sexual is capable of being in an exclusive relationship with either sex. I am not capable of being in an exclusive relationship with a woman or even a brief encounter with out feeling as if something is missing and that something would be a penis. I could still enjoy said relationship until I couldn’t. It is not fair of me to include myself in a category that I cannot fully commit too.
Now I know you are going to say, “But a bi sexual just means there is an attraction to women and men.” Again very limiting. If this were true then you have to concede that every single woman or man is then bisexual because there is not one man or woman who is not attracted to both sexes. Any man can look at another and judge him to be ugly or handsome and if you say handsome, that is attraction. This is how you measure yourself, in comparison to others. This is why we have a fashion industry. Why we wear makeup and perfume. This is why we mimic the actions of others. Krafft-Ebing and Freud are both in agreement that all human beings are bi-sexual by nature but for me to be part of the “group” I would have to take it up a notch and be willing to be in a relationship with either and feel whole and complete in said relationship. So, no, I am not bi-sexual.
Find me a new label you label maker you.
24 comments on Ka Zam! Bi-Sexual Babes in a Bottle!
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
You mean we cant catagorize people and put them in a little box. Drat, someone might have to think a bit...
I think categories are important to making at least *some* sort of sense of this giant world we live in. When used with care. It's easy to say "okay, there are five major genres of world view on the planet. Well, let's see, I feel that #'s 1, 3, 4, and 5 are bogus, since they're the ones that are foreign to me -- therefore only people in category #2 are sensible."
Categories (And labels) should be used to understand, not dismiss.
SigmaX
I do identify as being bisexual...but god help me I hate that label!!! Especially since it is considered to be a fad or a phase by many ppl.
On a similiar note...
"
Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom Homosexual behavior is common in nature, and it plays an important role in survivalBy Emily V. Driscoll
...
Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. “Animals don’t do sexual identity. They just do sex,” says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England.
Nevertheless, the study of homosexual activity in diverse species may elucidate the evolutionary origins of such behavior. Researchers are now revealing, for example, that animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect their young or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable—or simply because it is fun. These observations suggest to some that bisexuality is a natural state among animals, perhaps Homo sapiens included, despite the sexual-orientation boundaries most people take for granted. “[In humans] the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed,” Anderson says....."
Yay labels
. I struggle similarly in that I feel uncomfortable identifying myself as an "atheist," even though I am one, because is solicits reaction and/or fear from many people, and because "a label is a very limiting term as it is
used to describe an entire product in one fell swoop in order to sell it, show
its limitations, dangers and qualities."
SigmaX
A link to General Semantics : Sound thinking for everyday life
Why don't you just comment instead of attmpting to give me reading assignments?
Lol, I agree!
Because someone else said it far better than I ever could. In your comments about lables you hit on only a small portion of what has been said about being aware of how language is used and abused. The link gives a more complete perspective on what you are saying.
Are you 'A', 'B', 'O' or 'AB' negative or positive and if you lose a lot of blood it sure would be handy to have that lable correctly applied, unless of course you want to die of blood clotting from a blood transfusion.
You cannot correctly apply a lable to a human being.
Would blood type not fit into her comment about being black and male?
You can not correctly apply a lable to anything but we still have to use them. The danger is in being unaware that language is a map of experience and can not be what is 'real' it can only ever be a representation or a map.
"Either-or thinking keeps us from seeing the great diversity in the world. For example, individuals do not come in two varieties: tall or short. If we lined up everyone in the United States and arranged them according to height, at one end of the line there would be professional basketball players, at the other end, midgets. Between these two groups would be the vast majority of individuals."
and
Words mean different things to different people (the field of Contract Law is based on this principle); words mean different things at different times (e.g., In 1896, nine men on the U. S. Supreme Court said that separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional. In 1954, nine different men said, in effect, that separate and equal are opposites); words mean different things in different contexts (e.g., He beat the drum with a stick. Beats me. The reporter has the mayor on his beat. He beat Joe at chess).
We use words to categorize and label people and events. But the categories we formulate do not exist “out there,” in the “real world.” They are created in our heads and expressed in language. The following are some GS observations on categories
* How we label or categorize a person will depend upon our purpose, our projections, and our evaluations; yet the person does not change just because we change the label or category. (When I taught in the New York City school system in the 1970s, there were students who were labeled “children of retarded mental development.” That term became thought of as pejorative so new nomenclature was devised, “special education students.” If someday that designation becomes problematic, perhaps because it is deemed too broad a descriptor, another tag will emerge to delineate “children who do not seem to learn what educators think they should.”)
* Things are not the same because they carry the same label—e.g., Leonardo da Vinci, Picasso, Jackson Pollack, and Andy Warhol may all be considered “artists.”
* Each classification tells us something about the way in which an object is considered (by someone) to be similar to certain other objects; each tells us something about the ways in which it is considered different from certain other objects. (Fuel economy guidelines currently set by the federal government classify SUVs as “light trucks,” not “passenger cars.” Because of this classification, current federal regulations allow SUVs to have far worse fuel economy than other vehicles. If Ralph Nader were president, I suspect SUVs would be classified differently.)
Categorizing and labeling people is quite common on talk radio. (“You believe that because you’re a liberal!” “That’s what I thought a conservative would say!” “What do you expect from a reactionary!”) Such classifying does not provide enlightenment on political matters. Rather, it exemplifies a malady that is rampant today in American politics, “hardening of the categories.” This condition can be successfully treated with the ideas and formulations of general semantics.11 But for that to happen, individuals need to apply the cure.
I will get back to you on this because I am busy with a caller, but I want to say so you justify giving a person a lable? Like an suv or light truck?
the use of beat all means the same thing BTW
So you are giving justification for the box instead of admiting that human beings cannot be labled just described.
Some one mightfit into : “You believe that because you’re a liberal!” but at that same time that cannot describe the whole of the person. Labals are not a good thing no matter how you want to justify it.
What is in bold is from the link. I said you cannot apply a lable to anything but we still have to use them. Each word of a language is a 'label'.
Not sure how you manage to see Beat, as in the subjects covered by or the map area covered by a person as opposed to the qualatative hitting of a durm and 'I don't know what to do' (beats me!), as all haveing the same meaning.
'Cool' less warm than the surrounding temprature.
'Cool' Something to be appreciated.
'Cool' as a question "Are we cool?" meaning we are not fighting or angry with each other any more.
Without the ability to 'label' we would not have language. At the same time understading the process of assigning or creating a label and what that label means to ourselves is very important when thinking and coping with our environment.
Verb is a 'doing' word, noun is a nameing word, adjective is describing word. In doing this we are catagorizing words and placing them into the labeling system!
Every word isn’t a label. The word, word is a descriptor. It assigns the thing in question properties. This stove is hot, Jan runs fast, cheesecake is wonderful, and drink bleach in moderation. I have assigned whatever I am talking about qualities by using descriptors. These can be changed. I can effect the stove to make it cool, I can hobble Jan to make her run slow, I can pour turpentine in my cheesecake to make it horrible, and I can have you drink bleach with no abandon, it would be preferable than listening to any more of your pseudo-analytical half cocked existentialism.
A label by definition is immutable. Once I assign something a label rather than a descriptor, then it will ALWAYS be whatever I labeled it. As seen on TV always applies.
Well now lets first address your use of the word “cool” like beat in your “experts” explanation it means the same thing in all three uses. Cool is used as an adjective to describe less heat both in a literal and metaphoric sense. In all instances it is referring to temperature
In both of your examples the words have the same core meaning.
Okay as far as beat goes, his beat refers to “his feet beating the pavement” “Beats me” the idea beat him. Perhaps you need to learn some word and phrase etymology.
Even with having a language we have not given a “label” to any combination of letters but have given that combination of letters something to describe thus giving them meaning.
Languages are made to be ever changing, even the smallest part of a word, a morpheme, was made so you can add more “parts” to make a more meaningful word and even they change. Do you think this language is the same as it was 100 years ago or even 1000? Even the word morpheme comes from the root word morphe which means form or shape. So to say every word is a label is ridiculous.
To label anything is “fixed” and unchanging which is something our language is not, never will be and was never meant to be.
I would think anyone who has to label their world, their words; themselves in order to deal with the world around them would be a real sad sack.
Talking about the phrase “As seen on TV” and some points you may have missed.
Your post is assumptive. First it implies that you were watching TV and saw what is being referred to. There is no time element attached to the sentence. “As seen on TV in 1960?” Immutable, was it a colour TV, a digital TV, Cable TV and what was the broadcasting area that the 'as seen' is referring to? Was ‘it’ shown only on TV? Perhaps ‘it’ has been shown at the cinema too!
How does the word, 'word' actually describe words? How can you be sure that all the 'properties' assigned work for all situations? Words are only an internal mental understanding of a pattern, which has some reasonable consistency.
"your pseudo-analytical half cocked existentialism". First of all it is NOT my thinking, it is someone else’s thinking that I am attempting to explain, as I understand it. Second it is not existentialism unless that is how you have assigned properties to this word. Third you are not 'listening' you are reading. Your use the conjunction pseudo and analytical is a bit hypocritical coming from what would seem a very poor appreciation and understanding of the subject of general semantics.
You are very funny in the way you present yourself as understanding what has been said, yet stumble to make your argument precise and clear where if you had actually comprehended most of what the link was saying you would not have made so many blatant mistakes.
I suppose next comes the pointless swear words or the thrill of being amused that you write and think you have some special power to tweak a response. No matter, your post helped me demonstrate that we, including myself, are not always aware of the assumptions that accompany what we say and write.
I suspect that ‘Are we cool?’ is going to have the answer “No!”.
Thank you for taking part in this written conversation.
So do you always do this? Do you disseminate every argument against you with the same garbage you spill constantly?
I have one question for you…
What’s the first word that comes to your mind?
I bet you get it wrong.
Run while you still have legs.
Rolls of floor laughing at these comments. (Old legal saying, if no argument attack the plaintiffs attorney, and just to be clear that means if you can't argue your point of view you attack the person rather than discuss the subject, JTrunt your post has nothing to do with the subject, lol)
I am what I am and will be, nor a thousand years of thousands of tears will change one jot of this and as written by Shakespeare as rose by any other name would smell just the same.
Hmmm! The children here are using the word 'wicked' to mean awesome, great, really good, which is an odd morphing of the original meaning of the word yet it is a meme that seems to have spread and stuck.
If I say "Please order a deck of cards' there is a lot of ambiguity in that request.
Am i saying please ask a supplier of cards to send new deck.
Am I saying take mixed up deck and put them in order, and then there is the problem of what order do I put them in?
Is it possible that you just called the person who created Esperanto sad?
If you don’t want to understand and wish to remain attached to your viewpoint that is ok, all of this is about is the awareness of the information and assumptions that get associated with words, if you can’t see that language is a tool used to map the environment we live in and the map cannot be congruent with the environment then I am happy to leave it at that.
You are arguing context not definition wicked means the same thing it always did as well. Even with you use of it here.
Same as when bad is good.
Though, since this comment is for Johnny I am gonna duck out so he does not unload on my ass :P
Feel free to reply to my comment :P
So words mean what we want them to mean providing they sit in a suitable context and category? So is a label fixed or changeable? If it means 'XYZ' in one context and ''ABC' in another as is found in the case of the word 'bad', then it is changeable and not a label as 'fixed', however 'bad' is used a label in a similar way as 'bisexual' is used as a label, as in "he is a bisexual wolf" and "he is a bad wolf".
Is a descriptor a label? I think it is because in order to comprehend it is a descriptor we first have to have knowledge of what it is describing. If you sent a letter using the Latin alphabet to an African who has had no contact with the world outside the area he hunts for food, ignoring the problem of sending a letter to an unknown person in an isolated area, they would have no idea of what they were looking at.
Interestingly humans cannot learn a language after a certain age but if in contact with another human of a similar age but still isolated from the rest of the world, they can develop their own method of communicating.
My thoughts have mostly been directed at mmmHollyWould as JTruant's input seems to me to be irrelevant and inaccurate.
That is not a lable that is a word describing his sexuality lordy
see my new article
A label is used to reveal what isn't already obvious. For example, we put labels on cans because we have no other way of knowing what's inside. It would be silly to associate a label with something that is subject to change. Gender and race are not labels because I will never wake up a different race or a sex.
Sexuality is fluid, so it doesn't require a label.
I am a lesbian because of the emotional connection I have with a woman. Just as you felt incomplete after sleeping with a woman, I feel incomplete after sleeping with a man...But I have slept with a man since I've been calling myself a lesbian. There is no way in hell I'd call myself bisexual.
I believe that sexuality is more about who your mind is attracted to than your body. Your inability to create mental intimacy means you're definitely not gay, but not bisexual either. I see you as a straight woman that sleeps with girls on occassion.
I disagree with your statement about the world being bisexual. It isn't enough to say someone is handsome, or pretty to identify attraction. I can look at a dog, cat, flower and appreciate it's beauty without having sexual urges.