How do you Define Homosexuality?

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope spoke the truth.

At 11/22/2011 11:27:58 AM, inferno wrote:

At 11/22/2011 10:55:35 AM, Ren wrote:
I've had a lot of conversations on here recently about homosexuality and something occurred to me. I can't actually identify when homosexuality begins.

Is it simply an attraction to to the same sex? As in, if you are a man and find a man attractive despite appearance, would that evidence you as a homosexual?

Or, is it the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex despite appearance?

Conversely, is it an attraction to or a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender despite sex?

Or, does it require both the same sex and gender?

Can a hermaphrodite be a homosexual?

What would you call someone who maintains every semblance of a homosexual relationship, but with someone who doesn't appeal to gender distinctions of the opposite sex?

Medically speaking, homosexuality is when you have sex with someone of the same sex. Socially speaking, it's supposed to be sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, irregardless of gender. Those do not seem to be adequate definitions in real life...

Its a demonic influence that is part of our dying and immoral culture. Period.

At 2/9/2012 7:35:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I was just sigging infernos early post

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Homosexual" as a category, when you get down it, is problematic. In historical terms it's a relatively new phrase. Sexuality is not necessarily a static thing and can change for people over time.

My girlfriend's roommate says he isn't gay. He's just in love with a man (who he is sleeping with). This guy came from the deep south, and has slept with both men and women. He is a movie production designer with a gem collection he dug up in his family's mine.

It is coherent to say "that man is homosexual even if he doesn't think so." That means that "homosexuality" is not simply a self-reported label.

However, we can talk about homosexual behavior and homosexual arousal.

When we are aroused sexually, there are physiological changes in our body which can be tracked (for example, eye dilation). The response is instantaneous and not conscious.

I would classify someone as "homosexual" if, when presented with subliminal pictures of men and women, show disproportionate arousal towards pictures of men instead of women.

A homosexual, then, is not some sort of essential property, but a classification based on current neural physiology. You cannot consciously "change" how your body reacts to attractive males or females, you can only ignore it or repress it.

However, traumatic events can cause your baseline reactions change. That is, we can say that in some cases, a psychological trauma could make someone who would otherwise be bisexual (generally equivalent arousal reactions to men and women) be mainly aroused by men. When the trauma has been resolved, it could be that arousal rises for women disproportionately to men, and from then on the individuals actions are "heterosexual." So, under a very, very select set of genetic and environmental circumstances, one can indeed "become" gay or "become" straight over time. To reiterate, this applies to a EXTREMELY small proportion of the homosexual community. An analog would be how some girls become "frigid" and unable to enjoy sex after a rape due to how the trauma has effected their baseline reaction to sexual stimuli. W

Using this definition, we can also distinguish acts of homosexual desire (i.e. a couple having anal sex) from acts which, while "homosexual," come from non-sexual sources (most rape in prisons).

Being gay has nothing to do with wanting to be gay, acting gay, or even believing you are gay. It has to do with how your body responds to sexual stimuli from different sexes.

It is innate, but not essentialist.

At 2/7/2012 11:54:41 PM, chingchang wrote:
Homosexuality is when a person is attracted to the same gender. That's it. There's no other definition. Sure, you can explain it differently but it'll still be the same thing. Don't confuse yourself.

At 2/18/2012 6:46:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Homosexual" as a category, when you get down it, is problematic. In historical terms it's a relatively new phrase. Sexuality is not necessarily a static thing and can change for people over time.

My girlfriend's roommate says he isn't gay. He's just in love with a man (who he is sleeping with). This guy came from the deep south, and has slept with both men and women. He is a movie production designer with a gem collection he dug up in his family's mine.

It is coherent to say "that man is homosexual even if he doesn't think so." That means that "homosexuality" is not simply a self-reported label.

However, we can talk about homosexual behavior and homosexual arousal.

When we are aroused sexually, there are physiological changes in our body which can be tracked (for example, eye dilation). The response is instantaneous and not conscious.

I would classify someone as "homosexual" if, when presented with subliminal pictures of men and women, show disproportionate arousal towards pictures of men instead of women.

A homosexual, then, is not some sort of essential property, but a classification based on current neural physiology. You cannot consciously "change" how your body reacts to attractive males or females, you can only ignore it or repress it.

However, traumatic events can cause your baseline reactions change. That is, we can say that in some cases, a psychological trauma could make someone who would otherwise be bisexual (generally equivalent arousal reactions to men and women) be mainly aroused by men. When the trauma has been resolved, it could be that arousal rises for women disproportionately to men, and from then on the individuals actions are "heterosexual." So, under a very, very select set of genetic and environmental circumstances, one can indeed "become" gay or "become" straight over time. To reiterate, this applies to a EXTREMELY small proportion of the homosexual community. An analog would be how some girls become "frigid" and unable to enjoy sex after a rape due to how the trauma has effected their baseline reaction to sexual stimuli. W

Using this definition, we can also distinguish acts of homosexual desire (i.e. a couple having anal sex) from acts which, while "homosexual," come from non-sexual sources (most rape in prisons).

Being gay has nothing to do with wanting to be gay, acting gay, or even believing you are gay. It has to do with how your body responds to sexual stimuli from different sexes.

It is innate, but not essentialist.

The Fool: I am usually the one being over analytic and I reject the term, but come on, the definion is as simple as the name, homo-sexual, just like tri-angle. It was answered in the question. It just symbolizes a category, might not even reflect reality. You are commiting a fallacy or reification. Like we do IQ, where we think it is a real world entity within somebody rather, then an abstract score on a test, which might not even reflect someones actual intellegence at all.

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
I would classify someone as "homosexual" if, when presented with subliminal pictures of men and women, show disproportionate arousal towards pictures of men instead of women.

At 11/22/2011 10:55:35 AM, Ren wrote:
I've had a lot of conversations on here recently about homosexuality and something occurred to me. I can't actually identify when homosexuality begins.

Is it simply an attraction to to the same sex? As in, if you are a man and find a man attractive despite appearance, would that evidence you as a homosexual?

Or, is it the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex despite appearance?

Conversely, is it an attraction to or a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender despite sex?

Or, does it require both the same sex and gender?

Can a hermaphrodite be a homosexual?

What would you call someone who maintains every semblance of a homosexual relationship, but with someone who doesn't appeal to gender distinctions of the opposite sex?

Medically speaking, homosexuality is when you have sex with someone of the same sex. Socially speaking, it's supposed to be sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, irregardless of gender. Those do not seem to be adequate definitions in real life...

At 2/18/2012 7:58:02 PM, Nougatrocity wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
I would classify someone as "homosexual" if, when presented with subliminal pictures of men and women, show disproportionate arousal towards pictures of men instead of women.

I would classify someone as "homosexual" if, when asked to share sexual orientation, they answered "homosexual". If they don't want the label, it's really literally none of my business whether or not they should have it.

At 6/26/2012 2:20:15 AM, bluesteel wrote:
When Mac has sex with the tranny in Always Sunny, is that more or less gay than the guy who marries her when she's post-op.

Some include bisexual- but even then, you are left with one of three choices only, as if human sexuality is that simplistic.

At 6/26/2012 3:21:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Some include bisexual- but even then, you are left with one of three choices only, as if human sexuality is that simplistic.

A car is not a simple device, yet it's either gonna be 4wd or 2wd. Homo/hetero/bi does not need to describe every aspect of human sexuality to be able to apply one and only one term to each person, once you have a definition.

A problem with the homo/hetero/bi setup is that it assumes sexuality in the first place.

But is it true? No.

At 6/26/2012 3:48:48 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

A problem with the homo/hetero/bi setup is that it assumes sexuality in the first place.

True. Make it a spectrum of sexual persons, voila. Nonsexual persons stop worrying.

But is it true? No.

Define the proposition before ascribing a truth value.

At 6/26/2012 4:00:21 AM, Oryus wrote:

At 6/26/2012 3:48:48 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

A problem with the homo/hetero/bi setup is that it assumes sexuality in the first place.

True. Make it a spectrum of sexual persons, voila. Nonsexual persons stop worrying.

Yeah, do whatever you want. There are plenty of options. It's nebulous.

But is it true? No.

Define the proposition before ascribing a truth value.

You've already responded to this point. You said, "True."
If you assume sexuality on a scale which, allegedly, applies to all people (each person), then the scale is false because asexuals exist.

At 6/26/2012 8:46:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think everyone's a little bit gay.

At 6/26/2012 2:03:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's only gay if you swallow.

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:

A homosexual, then, is not some sort of essential property, but a classification based on current neural physiology.

At 6/26/2012 4:02:53 PM, Ren wrote:

At 2/8/2012 9:53:25 PM, Wnope wrote:

A homosexual, then, is not some sort of essential property, but a classification based on current neural physiology.

Ahhh, this didn't receive enough attention. I think that this fact makes sexuality generally indistinct.

Everything that comprises both genders and sexes (save for the capacity to produce sperm and eggs) have become malleable and interchangeable. Say, for example, men with breasts and women with pecs.

So, the mere experience of sexual preference is subjective, and likely, in many cases, inaccurate. So many "girls" and "men" checked out on the street may prove to be the opposite, biologically speaking. The act of sex, in and of itself, can be gender specific, but doesn't have to be, and can bleed into areas where gender doesn't even matter, leading to the potential for a lack of concern for gender altogether.

On a separate note, I also figure that if we weren't so intent on marrying a given sexual orientation, it would become much more obvious that it isn't so cut-and-dry.