We must overcome this addiction to identity! Until the turn of the twentieth century, the notion of a person's identity being inherently tied up with her sexuality didn't exist. There was no such thing as homo/heterosexuality. Instead, people were divided into the healthy and mentally ill, with a person's sexual behavior being but a symptom of her psychological condition. With opening of the next century, people laid a linguistic grid on the preexisting system to create the binary categories of sexuality. The people of this time thought themselves progressive; thought they had finally gotten it right. But as the decades marched on the oh-so enlightened spirits had to confront the fact they had left out an important middle position – the bisexual. It was with the advent of this linguistic grid, and not until then, that sexual identity was finally understood - or so they thought. At this point the foundation had been laid and it was but a matter of time before the work of Alfred Kinsey could come into prominence, and thus we enter the contemporary age, and again we think we finally understand the correct order of and relationship between sexual phenomena and identity. How far are we to take this structuralist categorizing before its own silliness comes into view?

What is this identity we seek? It is but a set of attributes, a list of the groups to which one belongs that notes of the order and degree of belonging. But who set the parameters of these attributes? Who defined what sympathies designate members of a group and what antipathies are the markers of an outsider? It is society, social discourse, which sets out these categories! It is the herd instinct that prompts the question “Who am I?” We disillusion ourselves with the question of identity. Why are we so concerned with who we are? Why not instead sense, act, and desire without a caring about which categories designate ourselves? Are you confused about your sexuality? Are you confused about who you are? Well, I have the answer for you! I have solved your dilemma! You ask yourself, “What is my sexual orientation? Who am I? What am I?” The answer is the definitive and resounding, “Stop giving a damn!” We must overcome this addiction to identity.

post #443869

No, really. I mean, that is a wordful text about gender identity and I didn't quite got what you're trying to say...

Xch3l said:
post #443869

I was just thinking if I should post that XD

thismadness said:
We must overcome this addiction to identity! Until the turn of the twentieth century, the notion of a person's identity being inherently tied up with her sexuality didn't exist. There was no such thing as homo/heterosexuality. Instead, people were divided into the healthy and mentally ill, with a person's sexual behavior being but a symptom of her psychological condition. With opening of the next century, people laid a linguistic grid on the preexisting system to create the binary categories of sexuality. The people of this time thought themselves progressive; thought they had finally gotten it right. But as the decades marched on the oh-so enlightened spirits had to confront the fact they had left out an important middle position – the bisexual. It was with the advent of this linguistic grid, and not until then, that sexual identity was finally understood - or so they thought. At this point the foundation had been laid and it was but a matter of time before the work of Alfred Kinsey could come into prominence, and thus we enter the contemporary age, and again we think we finally understand the correct order of and relationship between sexual phenomena and identity. How far are we to take this structuralist categorizing before its own silliness comes into view?

What is this identity we seek? It is but a set of attributes, a list of the groups to which one belongs that notes of the order and degree of belonging. But who set the parameters of these attributes? Who defined what sympathies designate members of a group and what antipathies are the markers of an outsider? It is society, social discourse, which sets out these categories! It is the herd instinct that prompts the question “Who am I?” We disillusion ourselves with the question of identity. Why are we so concerned with who we are? Why not instead sense, act, and desire without a caring about which categories designate ourselves? Are you confused about your sexuality? Are you confused about who you are? Well, I have the answer for you! I have solved your dilemma! You ask yourself, “What is my sexual orientation? Who am I? What am I?” The answer is the definitive and resounding, “Stop giving a damn!” We must overcome this addiction to identity.

YOU WOT M8

thismadness said:
We must overcome this addiction to identity! Until the turn of the twentieth century, the notion of a person's identity being inherently tied up with her sexuality didn't exist. There was no such thing as homo/heterosexuality. Instead, people were divided into the healthy and mentally ill, with a person's sexual behavior being but a symptom of her psychological condition. With opening of the next century, people laid a linguistic grid on the preexisting system to create the binary categories of sexuality. The people of this time thought themselves progressive; thought they had finally gotten it right. But as the decades marched on the oh-so enlightened spirits had to confront the fact they had left out an important middle position – the bisexual. It was with the advent of this linguistic grid, and not until then, that sexual identity was finally understood - or so they thought. At this point the foundation had been laid and it was but a matter of time before the work of Alfred Kinsey could come into prominence, and thus we enter the contemporary age, and again we think we finally understand the correct order of and relationship between sexual phenomena and identity. How far are we to take this structuralist categorizing before its own silliness comes into view?

What is this identity we seek? It is but a set of attributes, a list of the groups to which one belongs that notes of the order and degree of belonging. But who set the parameters of these attributes? Who defined what sympathies designate members of a group and what antipathies are the markers of an outsider? It is society, social discourse, which sets out these categories! It is the herd instinct that prompts the question “Who am I?” We disillusion ourselves with the question of identity. Why are we so concerned with who we are? Why not instead sense, act, and desire without a caring about which categories designate ourselves? Are you confused about your sexuality? Are you confused about who you are? Well, I have the answer for you! I have solved your dilemma! You ask yourself, “What is my sexual orientation? Who am I? What am I?” The answer is the definitive and resounding, “Stop giving a damn!” We must overcome this addiction to identity.

= post #311085

It is human nature to categorize.
We even teach it to our kids, square peg, square hole, round peg, round hole.

what the hell

I really, really disagree with your points for a number of reasons, but I don't think this forum is the right place to talk about it.

That's a nice magical bubble land you're living in, OP. It'd be a shame if it should pop.

Too bad it doesn't matter because you're preaching to the choir at best, and the people who you might convince otherwise aren't listening.

Also, lrn2walloftext, your rant is under 250 words-- pathetic really.

ippiki_ookami said:
what the hell

Psychology student.

Freshman year.

Halite said:
It is human nature to categorize.
We even teach it to our kids, square peg, square hole, round peg, round hole.

I'm rather skeptical of human nature. As you pointed out, the difference between a square and a circle is taught, and not inherent to an infant's mind. It is not simply the words "square" and "circle" that must be taught, but the very difference in structure. We do all categorize, at least if we want to be able to navigate the world, but we can categorize without believing we're divining some underlying truth of reality or identity. It is necessary for a dentist to identify as such if he wants to run his business, but he would be wise to only identify as such insofar as it is a pragmatic necessity. Stable identities preclude personal development. Certain categories even owe their existence to particular political agendas - the most obvious example being sin and virtue.
When the Russian proletariat first united against the Russian oligarchy, they "invented" new concepts of good and evil in an effort to combat and overcome the previous ones. But what was it the Soviets wished to secure for and disseminate amongst the proletariat when they finally did take power? It was the bourgeoisie life style, bourgeoisie leisure, bourgeoisie marriage, bourgeoisie SEXUALITY! They thought they had come up with new categories of justice, good and evil, but really these categories were just extensions of the old mode of thought. It's no small wonder then that a man like Joseph Stalin was able to bloom in such soil.
All contemporary notions of sexual identity, including the Kinsey scale, derive from bigoted and oppressive attitudes regarding mental health. This is the real reason for there still being so much homophobia in the "heterosexual community," and for the general intolerance of "bisexuals" by "homosexuals." So not only is the notion of the "true self" destructive in its own right, but the very categories you use to define yourself are often themselves integral components of systems of oppression. Michel Foucault famously said, "I'm not so sure a truly just society would have any concept of justice." So too am I not convinced that a sexually liberated society would have any notions of sexual orientation and identity.

Okay, coming from someone with a degree in philosophy, you need to learn to communicate your arguments better.
This is true of a lot of arguments - it doesn't matter if you've found a foolproof solution for world peace if you can't explain it properly. You could probably have said the same thing in about three sentences.

As for your actual argument, first, who are you addressing and why? Are you talking to the internet to address negative stereotypes? Are you addressing this forum in particular because of a hurtful community? Are you in fact trying to change the entire world on this?
This matters a lot because it dictates whether people want to respond with analysis of the human psyche concerning gender identity and our biological inclinations, our immediate and literal identity with reference to online anonymity, or just thoughtfulness and conduct on this site.

I get the feeling you're aiming for the big picture here, but you telling people to 'stop identifying themselves' isn't going to convince anyone of anything. I feel you probably have a point as far as sexuality goes, but the idea of people discarding that stigma is centuries away, if it ever happens.

This thread

elad said:
As for your actual argument, first, who are you addressing and why?

He's trying to show us how much of an intellectual he is.

His notion of sexual liberty isn't defined, his critique of sexual labels has no basis, and his criterion is nonexistent.

Just ignore him.

Not written for the audience at all. Unfortunately, I suspect your argument would lose its validity (i.e., look like an opinion) if you simplified it. And obviously, I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here.

Thread locked.

Thank you for your opinion, but we are here for porn.

I agree. Gender stereotyping is bad. Let's uh, not do that then. That said let's move along and dive back into the post index