|
|
|
|
Calling all trans, bisexual, lesbian, gay, intersex, queer, questioning, dyke, fag, genderqeeer, heteroflexible, homoflexible, boi, girrl, pansexual, _____ (fill in your own)
I must be getting old: I don't even understand half of these terms. Perhaps next time they will supply a dictionary or lexicon.
Err. I don't think I shall answer the call. I'm not even sure it's addressed to me! I must fit in there somewhere, I suppose, but to make me feel really comfortable I would need a longer list, I think.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's not so much that you might need a dictionary for all these new terms, but that they represent just a part of spectrum of human sexuality and sexual attractions. We're all different. Some days all I think about is my girl, and other days I can't stop thinking about Eldon. Some days everything is all jumbled up and I wonder if I'll ever be able to put a label on myself. Then I think, "Why label myself?"
Maybe if we all stop trying to label each other and put each other into neat little compartments it would be better. "Sufficient as I am!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right. I can't label myself either and if I had tried to do it I'm sure that at different times I'd have given different answers.
Once upon a time I would have been called a crazy, mixed up kid, but now I'm 73, faithfully married for 44 years and describe myself as gay - now I'm obviously none of those things any more.
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
If I recall, you're 17, 18, 19? Something like that? It might be a little bit more clear-cut when the hormone levels retreat to more "normal" levels.
Or at least that's what I told myself for three years until I finally came to the conclusion that it wasn't a passing thing, my attraction towards guys.
Of that list, the only two I've never seen are "boi" and "girrrl". I'm not at all certain what those mean, but the rest of them I'm much more familiar with.
I don't know - it's human nature to assign labels to things. It's like opposable thumbs - our superior capability to classify is something that makes man the "intelligent" species of the planet. There was a time where I refused to call myself gay; I was "queer", because I thought "gay" was a category, while "queer" was just an adjective. Then I figured out that it doesn't matter what the category is, since the lines blur at the edges. Yes, I'm gay, but I'm also a jock, I'm also a dork, and I'm also a musical theatre guy. It's not always as simple as one little checkbox. But it's never going to change, man's tendency to make it that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is getting very philosophical and I like that. A concept is the idea attached to a word and words are made and used only by human beings. We could have a long argument about whether any other beings use concepts, but as far as anyone knows no one else uses words.
It is words that enable people to share ideas. I can still follow what Euclid wrote. No other species can do that - exchange ideas between different generations, between the dead and those still alive. That is fundamental to the increase of knowledge.
But a concept IS a label. A chair, for example is a concept and almost anything you can sit on can be called a chair in some circumstances. I remember a child sitting on a strange tuft of grass and announcing "Chair!" as she did so.
So what I am saying in effect is that the human ability to think depends to a large extent on our willingness to give labels to things and thus to categorise them.
Think on . . .
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
