Tweet
A label is useful only to the one who first applies it.
Vancouverman, made an excellent point about there being a continuum of sexual preference from fully gay to fully straight. Were there such an index of sexual preferences, as he suggests, then we might see individuals labelled here e.g. as being .88 straight, .63 bisexual or .95 gay etc. but even such a scale could not be considered absolute for there’s always a real possibility that sexual preferences would not be static but could likely be varied and fluid, changing from hour to hour, day to day, situation to situation changing along that continuum as circumstances and opportunities arise.
My point in this discussion has been that labels, as currently used here, are of no value in determining an individual’s place on any scale. Labels to be of any value must accurately reflect whatever measure they are intended to portray but, as labels are used here, they generally fall far short of describing, to any acceptable degree, the status of those who have been tagged with them.
The blanket terms used to describe others, Gay and Bisexual, are way too broad and restrictive to be of any realistic value in describing a person yet are stated as if they’re unequivocally factual! Because of the inherent implication of either label, that since I might enjoy being with T-Girls, I must therefore enjoy males, I vigourously object to being labelled “Gay” or even ”Bisexual”!
Labels as used here, are supported by opinion only with a total absence of factual evidence. Based solely on the prejudiced opinion of one person such label is arbitrary and/or even judgmental and can only be of value to the one who created it for it makes no attempt to address the overall sexual preferences of the person labelled. “Of what benefit can such inaccurate labelling be to the forum or to it‘s members?”
Vancouverman, made an excellent point about there being a continuum of sexual preference from fully gay to fully straight. Were there such an index of sexual preferences, as he suggests, then we might see individuals labelled here e.g. as being .88 straight, .63 bisexual or .95 gay etc. but even such a scale could not be considered absolute for there’s always a real possibility that sexual preferences would not be static but could likely be varied and fluid, changing from hour to hour, day to day, situation to situation changing along that continuum as circumstances and opportunities arise.
My point in this discussion has been that labels, as currently used here, are of no value in determining an individual’s place on any scale. Labels to be of any value must accurately reflect whatever measure they are intended to portray but, as labels are used here, they generally fall far short of describing, to any acceptable degree, the status of those who have been tagged with them.
The blanket terms used to describe others, Gay and Bisexual, are way too broad and restrictive to be of any realistic value in describing a person yet are stated as if they’re unequivocally factual! Because of the inherent implication of either label, that since I might enjoy being with T-Girls, I must therefore enjoy males, I vigourously object to being labelled “Gay” or even ”Bisexual”!
Labels as used here, are supported by opinion only with a total absence of factual evidence. Based solely on the prejudiced opinion of one person such label is arbitrary and/or even judgmental and can only be of value to the one who created it for it makes no attempt to address the overall sexual preferences of the person labelled. “Of what benefit can such inaccurate labelling be to the forum or to it‘s members?”
Thanks, but I wish I could have spelled it perfectly! 
A* 
Comment