4 ms·

What I never understood is why these animals are actually considered "attracted to the same sex" when they really just "have sex with the same sex". Perhaps th

What I never understood is why these animals are actually considered "attracted to the same sex" when they really just "have sex with the same sex". Perhaps this distinction does not seem like it matters but I predict in the future this distinction will be extremely common (in humans at least).

kakarot 8y ago
I don't typically have sex with things I'm not attracted to... And even if psychologically my sexual impulse seems different from that of an animal's, it's biologically the same. What purpose does this distinction serve?
- dTal 8y ago
  Many people do have sex with people they're not attracted to, and many people do not have sex with people they are attracted to. The distinction is useful. Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kakarot 8y ago
    The article you linked mentioned the term was coined during the rise of the AIDS/HIV epidemic when we needed to statistically account for men who had sex with other men but whom did not feel comfortable identifying with the words "gay" or "bisexual". I'm personally in the camp that if you have sex with genders outside the opposite of your own, then you're either gay or bisexual. I don't differentiate between whether you're attracted to the same sex or just seriously, uncontrollably horny and desperate to shag anything with an orifice. I guess I still don't see the relevance of a distinction beyond that of psycho-semantics.
- ElFitz 8y ago
  Differentiating the facts from speculations and of the projections of our perceptions and experiences as a species onto other species? Who am I to say why an animal who's mind I have no insight into is having sex? I wouldn't even dare to begin supposing pretending I have any idea of what's going on in an octopus' mind(s). (Although I did once read a fascinating fiction on some blog about exactly that. Can't find it now)
- peteretep 8y ago
  Plenty of people have sex with their hand, or an object. Dogs hump legs. Sexual attraction and the desire to orgasm are distinct.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    I guess I define sexuality in the proper literal sense as "Who you have sex with" vs "Who you find attractive. Because when framed that way, attractive becomes subjectively defined. Sexually attractive? Well yes, if you're humping it you find it sexually attractive. Psychologically attractive? Only if you have some kind of complex against being labeled 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' while still engaging in coutius with other people of the same sex. Emotionally/Intellectually attractive? Well, personally I don't find myself sexually attracted to people (and in effect, things) whom I can't satisfactorily engage with on an intellectual and emotional level. I know some people are different and will fuck anything that moves. I've had people tell me so themselves. But I don't think the "Men Who Have Sex With Men" label discusses intellectual stimulation as a stipulation.
peteretep 8y ago
> I predict in the future this distinction will be extremely common It’s very common in sexual health because “men who have sex with other men” is much more useful when reasoning about disease spread than peoples wide gamut of self-reported sexual orientations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
firstplacelast 8y ago
The same can be said about heterosexual sex. How do you know people are “attracted to the opposite sex” when they really just “have sex with the opposite sex.”
- chess93 8y ago
  People can be asked and answer truthfully while animals are unable to do the same. There are definitely gay people who get married and have kids though. An alien who doesn't understand humans might classify them as heterosexual.

kakarot 8y ago

I don't typically have sex with things I'm not attracted to... And even if psychologically my sexual impulse seems different from that of an animal's, it's biologically the same. What purpose does this distinction serve?

dTal 8y ago
Many people do have sex with people they're not attracted to, and many people do not have sex with people they are attracted to. The distinction is useful. Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kakarot 8y ago
  The article you linked mentioned the term was coined during the rise of the AIDS/HIV epidemic when we needed to statistically account for men who had sex with other men but whom did not feel comfortable identifying with the words "gay" or "bisexual". I'm personally in the camp that if you have sex with genders outside the opposite of your own, then you're either gay or bisexual. I don't differentiate between whether you're attracted to the same sex or just seriously, uncontrollably horny and desperate to shag anything with an orifice. I guess I still don't see the relevance of a distinction beyond that of psycho-semantics.
ElFitz 8y ago
Differentiating the facts from speculations and of the projections of our perceptions and experiences as a species onto other species? Who am I to say why an animal who's mind I have no insight into is having sex? I wouldn't even dare to begin supposing pretending I have any idea of what's going on in an octopus' mind(s). (Although I did once read a fascinating fiction on some blog about exactly that. Can't find it now)
peteretep 8y ago
Plenty of people have sex with their hand, or an object. Dogs hump legs. Sexual attraction and the desire to orgasm are distinct.
- kakarot 8y ago
  I guess I define sexuality in the proper literal sense as "Who you have sex with" vs "Who you find attractive. Because when framed that way, attractive becomes subjectively defined. Sexually attractive? Well yes, if you're humping it you find it sexually attractive. Psychologically attractive? Only if you have some kind of complex against being labeled 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' while still engaging in coutius with other people of the same sex. Emotionally/Intellectually attractive? Well, personally I don't find myself sexually attracted to people (and in effect, things) whom I can't satisfactorily engage with on an intellectual and emotional level. I know some people are different and will fuck anything that moves. I've had people tell me so themselves. But I don't think the "Men Who Have Sex With Men" label discusses intellectual stimulation as a stipulation.

peteretep 8y ago

> I predict in the future this distinction will be extremely common It’s very common in sexual health because “men who have sex with other men” is much more useful when reasoning about disease spread than peoples wide gamut of self-reported sexual orientations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

firstplacelast 8y ago

The same can be said about heterosexual sex. How do you know people are “attracted to the opposite sex” when they really just “have sex with the opposite sex.”

chess93 8y ago
People can be asked and answer truthfully while animals are unable to do the same. There are definitely gay people who get married and have kids though. An alien who doesn't understand humans might classify them as heterosexual.