LGBT+ Marvel Characters Discussion

[Tiamatty]

I think this "Gay 4~someone~" is just totally stupid. I can't really believe that someone can feel atracted to only one person like that but not to anyone else, is that really what Kinsey 2 is supposed to mean? Are we going to say next Iceman is gay but actually "Straight for Opal" or any of his girlfriends?

Sexuality is complicated. There are people who are straight but develop an attraction to people of the same sex. There are people who are gay who develop an attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

Yeah I don't think that's how the Kinsey scale works. A 2 on the scale would be someone who's bisexual but prefers the opposite gender whereas 3 is right in the middle of the scale and would be someone who's equally attracted to both men and women.

A 2 is, "Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual."

But the Kinsey Scale is too simplistic, anyway. Sexuality is far, far more complex than any simple scale can really define. Sexuality is a wide spectrum, and people move around on it throughout their lives.

[Tiamatty]

Yeah, it's pretty much not a thing in real life. If you have the interest beyond curiosity you're bisexual. Not that there aren't degrees of that, and preference for one sex over the other. But it's a false separation from bisexual. Hence why I view Psylocke as bisexual, as she would never have been with Cluster if she weren't attracted to women on a sexual level. She would have just rejected her as she has done to Fantomex proper many times.

I disagree. "Straight with an exception" is not the same as bisexual. Bisexuality requires a pattern of attraction. A bisexual is attracted to both genders. Not in equal measures, for most bisexuals, but nonetheless, a bisexual is interested in people of both genders. But it's also possible to be attracted to a specific person of one sex or the other, and no other persons of that sex. I might meet a guy that I'd like to kiss, but I still wouldn't want to kiss any other guys, so I would still be straight, not bisexual. On the other hand, if kissing that guy made me decide that kissing guys is neat, and that there are other guys I wouldn't mind kissing, then I would be bisexual, because then, it's a pattern of attraction, not a single instance.

[Reality]

I disagree. "Straight with an exception" is not the same as bisexual. Bisexuality requires a pattern of attraction. A bisexual is attracted to both genders. Not in equal measures, for most bisexuals, but nonetheless, a bisexual is interested in people of both genders. But it's also possible to be attracted to a specific person of one sex or the other, and no other persons of that sex. I might meet a guy that I'd like to kiss, but I still wouldn't want to kiss any other guys, so I would still be straight, not bisexual. On the other hand, if kissing that guy made me decide that kissing guys is neat, and that there are other guys I wouldn't mind kissing, then I would be bisexual, because then, it's a pattern of attraction, not a single instance.

I'm saying while it may appear to an observer to be a single instance it simply couldn't be as it's hard wired into the brain. The sexes that attract an individual are pretty unchanging, even if preferences within that change. But even if there is only one person of the same sex you want to bone, then you're still bisexual. Because sexuality refers to sexes, not to individuals or gender. It doesn't have to be a common occurrence or a pattern to show that an individual is bisexual. They just need to be interested in people of the same sex and also not of the same sex. The degree to which they prefer one over the other doesn't make them not bisexual. You said as much when you admitted that most bisexual people prefer one sex over the other, indicating that the level of interest to qualify as bisexual varies from any interest to equal interest. That fully includes being attracted to very few members of a sex.

A good example is the word "unique." Many people say "more unique" when the term "unique" is an absolute. There aren't degrees of it. The same thing goes with bisexuality, because all the degrees of it are encapsulated within the term. If you can tick "yes" in the box of having been sexually attracted to both, you're bisexual. Attraction is something that comes from within that is inspired by something from without. The person you're into didn't overrule that, or else you could change sexualities on purpose or convert someone to another sexuality. Therefore, sexuality is innate, which means that exceptions to desires are only indicative of more desires. Hence, bisexual. It's really quite foolproof as a concept.

Short answer, if you're homosexual and heterosexual, you're bisexual, whatever form your actual relationships take.

[Tiamatty]

That's still a very simplistic view of sexuality. It waters the idea of bisexuality down to the point of being completely useless, for one thing, by saying that a single instance of attraction is enough to classify as bisexual. What, if I have an erotic dream about Ryan Reynolds, I'm automatically bisexual? Making a term too broad makes it meaningless.

Also, you're trying to define the sexualities of other people. Don't do that. If a person defines themselves as straight or gay, they are straight or gay. If they define themselves as not bisexual, they are not bisexual.

And on top of that, sexuality in general is just a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. You're saying sexuality is hard-wired, but it's not. It's a common argument - the whole "born that way" thing - but again, that argument just dismisses the experiences of a lot of people.

[t hedge coke]

That's still a very simplistic view of sexuality. It waters the idea of bisexuality down to the point of being completely useless, for one thing, by saying that a single instance of attraction is enough to classify as bisexual. What, if I have an erotic dream about Ryan Reynolds, I'm automatically bisexual? Making a term too broad makes it meaningless.

I think, actually, it does the opposite.

All you're doing is broadening the definition of gay and straight until they encompass anything that's not perfectly in the middle, in a fairly arbitrary way.

And, dreams are dreams. Sex dreams, in particular, probably don't hinge solely, if even primarily, on waking sexual attractions.

Otherwise, I do agree with you on your other points. And, I don't think there really is an optimal scale or set of terms you can use for sexuality, without needing a bunch of qualifiers and wiggle room. I'm not sure there can be

[Tiamatty]

I think, actually, it does the opposite.

All you're doing is broadening the definition of gay and straight until they encompass anything that's not perfectly in the middle, in a fairly arbitrary way.

I don't think so. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, you're straight. If you're attracted exclusively to the same sex, you're gay. If you're attracted to both sexes, to any degree, you're bisexual. But these all requires patterns of attraction. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, except for one specific person of the same sex, you're straight, you just have an exception. A bisexual person can go their whole lives without ever acting on an attraction to the same sex, but they're still bisexual, because they still have a pattern of attraction. But if a person is only ever attracted to one person of the same sex, then it's that one specific person they're attracted to, not the sex as a whole. They're not attracted to men, they're attracted to a man, and that's very different.

[t hedge coke]

I don't think so. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, you're straight. If you're attracted exclusively to the same sex, you're gay. If you're attracted to both sexes, to any degree, you're bisexual. But these all requires patterns of attraction. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, except for one specific person of the same sex, you're straight, you just have an exception. A bisexual person can go their whole lives without ever acting on an attraction to the same sex, but they're still bisexual, because they still have a pattern of attraction. But if a person is only ever attracted to one person of the same sex, then it's that one specific person they're attracted to, not the sex as a whole. They're not attracted to men, they're attracted to a man, and that's very different.

How many people does someone have to be attracted to on each side, to be bisexual, then? And how far does attraction need to go? Not even in terms of physical actions, but simply level of attraction. And, is there a time limit on how close the attractions need to be to one another, or how consistent over a lifetime?

I just think that even if it's "a man," or "a woman," that's still a man or woman.

"I'm not gay, I'm just gay for him," just seems to me a way of saying, "I'm not gay," while still having homosexual interest in someone and possibly homosexual sex with them.

What, I don't get, at all, are people who claim bisexual, but then clarify they've never acted on it or really ever had any feelings for that someone of that sex. They just think, well, everyone's a little bi, so they must be. If you've never felt something...

But, that's way out of the realm of this thread.

[Reality]

That's still a very simplistic view of sexuality. It waters the idea of bisexuality down to the point of being completely useless, for one thing, by saying that a single instance of attraction is enough to classify as bisexual. What, if I have an erotic dream about Ryan Reynolds, I'm automatically bisexual? Making a term too broad makes it meaningless.

Also, you're trying to define the sexualities of other people. Don't do that. If a person defines themselves as straight or gay, they are straight or gay. If they define themselves as not bisexual, they are not bisexual.

And on top of that, sexuality in general is just a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. You're saying sexuality is hard-wired, but it's not. It's a common argument - the whole "born that way" thing - but again, that argument just dismisses the experiences of a lot of people.

But it doesn't make the term broader than it is. I'm not redefining bisexuality, I'm using the actual definition of it. If someone fits the criteria, they are bisexual regardless of what they call themselves. Because that's how definitions work. And there's no evidence that being gay is anything but inborn. Just because you don't realize something is within you immediately doesn't mean it wasn't already there, when there is only evidence to suggest it was.

Really, it waters down the definition of bisexuality if you have to get enough ticks on the male and female columns of your little black book. The word applying to anyone attracted to both their own and other sexes is much clearer and more useful because it describes behavior, not identity.

I don't think so. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, you're straight. If you're attracted exclusively to the same sex, you're gay. If you're attracted to both sexes, to any degree, you're bisexual. But these all requires patterns of attraction. If you're attracted exclusively to the opposite sex, except for one specific person of the same sex, you're straight, you just have an exception. A bisexual person can go their whole lives without ever acting on an attraction to the same sex, but they're still bisexual, because they still have a pattern of attraction. But if a person is only ever attracted to one person of the same sex, then it's that one specific person they're attracted to, not the sex as a whole. They're not attracted to men, they're attracted to a man, and that's very different.

But sexuality refers to biology. To your body there is no difference between "a man" and "males" beyond their level of attractiveness to you. Which, if a man is straight, is zero.

You say that if you're exclusively attreactred to the same sex you're straight and if not then you're bisexual. But then you say that a person can be straight without sleeping exclusively with the opposite sex as an "exception", taken in this context to mean more than experimentation. You say that sexuality is defined by " patterns of attraction" but that one can be bisexual without ever acting on it. Does this not imply that attractions can be denied? In which case a straight person with an "exception" is just a bisexual person in denial. Clearly these are bisexuals, and they have acted upon and therefore established a pattern of bisexual attraction, even by your logic. It's bizarre.

I think your definitions are clashing. They probably need to be reevaluated.

How many people does someone have to be attracted to on each side, to be bisexual, then? And how far does attraction need to go? Not even in terms of physical actions, but simply level of attraction. And, is there a time limit on how close the attractions need to be to one another, or how consistent over a lifetime?

I just think that even if it's "a man," or "a woman," that's still a man or woman.

"I'm not gay, I'm just gay for him," just seems to me a way of saying, "I'm not gay," while still having homosexual interest in someone and possibly homosexual sex with them.

What, I don't get, at all, are people who claim bisexual, but then clarify they've never acted on it or really ever had any feelings for that someone of that sex. They just think, well, everyone's a little bi, so they must be. If you've never felt something...

But, that's way out of the realm of this thread.

Exactly! Especially with the getting off topic bit, enjoyable as it is.

Anyone wondering what will happen to the Angela solo when the Loki one begins? She'll be his Secret Service, so it could either be finished or drastically changed...

[Star_Jammer]

Also, you're trying to define the sexualities of other people. Don't do that. If a person defines themselves as straight or gay, they are straight or gay. If they define themselves as not bisexual, they are not bisexual.

This right here. Sexual identity is a personal thing, and no one should be able to define it for another person.

[Dermie]

This right here. Sexual identity is a personal thing, and no one should be able to define it for another person.

This is true BUT it would also be utterly naïve to not acknowledge the fact that sometimes people lie (to themselves, as well as to others) about what their orientation is. There is a difference between trying to define someone else's sexuality for them, and recognizing that someone is in denial.

Ultimately it is still up to the person to figure it out for themselves in their own time and their own way...but that doesn't mean someone else can't figure out the right answer before they do.

[Star_Jammer]

This is true BUT it would also be utterly naïve to not acknowledge the fact that sometimes people lie (to themselves, as well as to others) about what their orientation is. There is a difference between trying to define someone else's sexuality for them, and recognizing that someone is in denial.

Ultimately it is still up to the person to figure it out for themselves in their own time and their own way...but that doesn't mean someone else can't figure out the right answer before they do.

It's still a personal journey. And it's no ones right to tell someone else otherwise.

Even being in denial is personal, and having one's agency stripped from them by other people who want to stake claim to how another wants to identify is wrong.

There are points on the spectrum in which no one will take a person seriously if claiming to be something that seems to be contradictory (and in the case of LGBTQ, sometimes those points are as simple as "Well he's never brought a girl home!"), but that doesn't make it right to stake a claim for someone else.

[Wiccan]

Honestly I think that people who are attracted to both sexes, even rarely but call themselves straight are just afraid of the "bisexual" label. Is what the word was created for, you know.

[Star_Jammer]

Honestly I think that people who are attracted to both sexes, even rarely but call themselves straight are just afraid of the "bisexual" label. Is what the word was created for, you know.

There are people that I've met that generally use same sex partners "just to get their rocks off", but prefer opposite sex relationships and claim to be heterosexual (and vice versa). Quite different than bisexuals I've known, who can enter into a relationship with either sex.

Hence "sexual preference".

I find it funny that, oftentimes, people want to claim that sexuality is "fluid" and anyone can be anything, but turn around quickly and want to label everyone.

[MasterOfMagnetism]

Honestly I think that people who are attracted to both sexes, even rarely but call themselves straight are just afraid of the "bisexual" label. Is what the word was created for, you know.

Often it seems like a lot of people who are attracted to both men and women say that they're "sexually fluid" or that they "don't believe in labels" and purposefully avoid using the word bisexual.

There are people that I've met that generally use same sex partners "just to get their rocks off", but prefer opposite sex relationships and claim to be heterosexual (and vice versa). Quite different than bisexuals I've known, who can enter into a relationship with either sex.

Hence "sexual preference".

I find it funny that, oftentimes, people want to claim that sexuality is "fluid" and anyone can be anything, but turn around quickly and want to label everyone.

I've heard a lot of people say that most bisexual men "enjoy having sex with other men but could never fall in love with another man."

But we've veered off-topic for this thread. This discussion would be more appropriate in the LGBT community thread.

[Wiccan]

There are people that I've met that generally use same sex partners "just to get their rocks off"

I think that this should still count. Is "sexuality", "sexual orientation", and "bisexual", that doesn't exactly means romance or relationships.