Teancum Posted April 1 Posted April 1 On 3/31/2024 at 2:46 AM, smac97 said: ne thing I love about being a Latter-day Saint is that it gently compels us to transcend racial divisions. Racial and cultural "identities" are subordinated to our greater unifying identity as common children of a Heavenly Father and as disciples of His Son, Jesus Christ. Consider these 2012 remarks from then-Elder Oaks: Quote A Distinctive Way of Life As a way to help us keep the commandments of God, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have what we call a gospel culture. It is a distinctive way of life, a set of values and expectations and practices common to all members. This gospel culture comes from the plan of salvation, the commandments of God, and the teachings of the living prophets. It guides us in the way we raise our families and live our individual lives. The principles stated in the proclamation on the family are a beautiful expression of this gospel culture. To help its members all over the world, the Church teaches us to give up any personal or family traditions or practices that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and to this gospel culture. In this we heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said that we should not let anyone “spoil [us] through philosophy … after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). When it comes to giving up false traditions and cultures, we praise our younger people for their flexibility and progress, and we appeal to our older members to put away traditions and cultural or tribal practices that lead them away from the path of growth and progress. We ask all to climb to the higher ground of the gospel culture, to practices and traditions that are rooted in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. "{T}he Church teaches us to give up any personal or family traditions or practices that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and to this gospel culture." "When it comes to giving up false traditions and cultures, we praise our younger people for their flexibility and progress, and we appeal to our older members to put away traditions and cultural or tribal practices that lead them away from the path of growth and progress." "We ask all to climb to the higher ground of the gospel culture, to practices and traditions that are rooted in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ." If discipleship requires "giving up" some aspects of a cultural identity, perhaps it might also require us to give up some aspects of a sexual identity. Quote Many African traditions are consistent with the gospel culture and help our members keep the commandments of God. The strong African family culture is superior to that of many Western countries, where family values are disintegrating. We hope the examples of love and loyalty among members of African families will help us teach others these essential traditions in the gospel culture. Modesty is another African strength. We plead with youth elsewhere to be as modest as most of the young people we see in Africa. In contrast, some cultural traditions in parts of Africa are negative when measured against gospel culture and values. Several of these concern family relationships—what is done at birth, at marriage, and upon death. For example, some African husbands have the false idea that the husband rests while the wife does most of the work at home or that the wife and children are just servants of the husband. This is not pleasing to the Lord because it stands in the way of the kind of family relationships that must prevail in eternity and it inhibits the kind of growth that must occur here on earth if we are to qualify for the blessings of eternity. Study the scriptures and you will see that Adam and Eve, our first parents, the model for all of us, prayed together and worked together (see Moses 5:1, 4, 10–12, 16, 27). That should be our pattern for family life—respecting each other and working together in love. Another negative cultural tradition is the practice of lobola, or bride price, which seriously interferes with young men and women keeping the commandments of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. When a young returned missionary must purchase his bride from her father by a payment so large that it takes many years to accumulate, he is unable to marry or cannot do so until he is middle-aged. This conflicts with the gospel plan for sexual purity outside marriage, for marriage, and for child rearing. Priesthood leaders should teach parents to discontinue this practice, and young people should follow the Lord’s pattern of marriage in the holy temple without waiting for the payment of a bride price. Expand Here Elder Oaks cites a cultural practice that conflicts with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Discipleship invites - requires - us to choose one over the other. Quote Some other cultural practices or traditions that may conflict with gospel culture are weddings and funerals. I ask you not to make plans in connection with weddings and funerals that would cause you to go deeply into debt. Avoid extensive travel and expensive feasts. Excessive debt will weaken or prevent your ability to pay tithing, to attend the temple, and to send your children on missions. Make plans that will strengthen—not weaken—your future Church activity. Good counsel, this. Thanks, SO would you agree that based on your argument that being and active Latter-day Saint is a social construct? And that for those who lead it they teach that the LDS social construct is supreme above all others? That all others should be subordinated to the social construct(s) Mormonism imposes on a person? Is being LDS an identity? 2
OGHoosier Posted April 1 Posted April 1 43 minutes ago, bluebell said: Patrick Risk, a gay member of the church, published this post on social media: Pioneer energy to be honest.
bluebell Posted April 1 Posted April 1 7 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Pioneer energy to be honest. I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain?
smac97 Posted April 1 Posted April 1 18 hours ago, Teancum said: Quote "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct." I think more and more people are coming around and recognizing this. CFR for this the claim in quites Here you go. See also here. 18 hours ago, Teancum said: and the comment that more are coming around and recognizing this. You are issuing a CFR for what "I think"? Really? Okay. I, Spencer Macdonald, think that more and more people are coming around and recognizing that "sexual identity" is a social construct, that it is recent, and that it only has purchase in some Western countries (and is far from universally accepted). I think this concept is becoming more and more tenuous in the eyes of the average joe and more and more "sexual identities" are presented to us. For example, I recently came across the term "ecosexual." See, e.g., here: And here: Quote It’s one thing to give up plastic straws and recycle daily. But ecosexuals take their love for the planet to an entirely new level. What exactly is ecosexuality? It’s a trending sexual identity that means everything from literally having sex with the Earth to getting it on in the most eco-friendly way possible. ... Ecosexuality is inclusive, Reed explains, and ecosexuals can fall anywhere on the sexual identity spectrum, from straight to gay to trans and beyond. The list of "sexual identities" is, it seems, endless. See, e.g., here: Quote List of sexual identities[edit] Basically, all words ending with “-sexuality.” Heterosexuality refers to the pattern of attraction between opposite sexes. Homosexuality refers to the pattern of attraction between same sexes. Bisexuality refers to the pattern of attraction towards both sexes. Asexuality refers to the pattern of attraction between... well... no one. Pansexuality refers to the pattern of attraction between people regardless of their sex or gender identity. Polysexuality refers to the pattern of attraction towards many sexual orientations but not all of them. And here: Quote Identities[edit] Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.[10] It may also be categorized more widely to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities.[11] Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy.[12][13] Aromanticism is defined as "having little or no romantic feeling towards others: experiencing little or no romantic desire or attraction.[14][15] Bisexuality describes a pattern of attraction toward both males and females,[16] or to more than one sex or gender.[17] A bisexual identity does not necessarily equate to equal sexual attraction to both sexes; commonly, people who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other also identify themselves as bisexual.[7] Heterosexuality describes a pattern of attraction to persons of the opposite sex.[16] The term straight is commonly used to refer to heterosexuals.[18] Heterosexuals are by far the largest sexual identity group.[18] Homosexuality describes a pattern of attraction to other persons of the same sex.[16] The term lesbian is commonly used to refer to homosexual women, and the term gay is commonly used to refer to homosexual men, although gay is sometimes used to refer to women as well.[19][20] Pansexuality describes attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[21][22] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[23][24] Pansexuality is sometimes considered a type of bisexuality.[25] Polysexuality[a] has been defined as "encompassing or characterized by many different kinds of sexuality",[26] and as sexual attraction to many, but not all, genders.[27]: 281–287 Those who use the term may be doing so as a replacement for the term bisexual, believing bisexual reifies dichotomies.[28] Major monotheistic religions generally prohibit polysexual activity, but some religions incorporate it into their practices.[29] Polysexuality is also considered to be another word for bisexuality however unlike bisexuals, polysexuals are not necessarily attracted to people of the same gender.[27]: 322 [30] Sapiosexuality[b] describes attraction to the intelligence of another person.[31][32] The prefix sapio- comes from the Latin for "I [have] taste" or "I [have] wisdom" and refers to a person's preferences, proclivities, and common sense.[33] Sapiosexual-identifying individuals can also be gay, straight, or bisexual.[34][35] It is not a sexual orientation.[34][36] It first gained mainstream attention in 2014 when dating website OkCupid added it as one of several new sexual orientation and gender identity options.[34] About 0.5% of OkCupid users identify as sapiosexual, and it was most common among those ages 31–40.[34] Women are more likely to identify as sapiosexual than men.[37] Critics responded that sapiosexuality is "elitist", "discriminatory", and "pretentious".[34][36][38] OkCupid removed the identity on February 11, 2019[39] following what it described as "considerable negative feedback".[40] Relationship anarchy combines polyamory and anarchical principles. Its practice has no norms but tends towards criticism of western relationship norms, absence of demands and expectations on partners, and lack of distinction between hierarchical value of friendship and romantic relationships.[41] And here: Quote Sexualities master list THE 5 MAIN LABELS: Asexual - A person who does not experience sexual attraction at all, but still might experience romantic or platonic attraction, and still may participate in sexual activities. Bisexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to 2 or more genders Heterosexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to the opposite gender Homosexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to the same gender Pansexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to people regardless of their gender ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ OTHER LABELS AND SUB-LABELS: Abrosexual- A person who experiences a fluid or rapidly changing sexual attraction to different gender expressions. Acosexual- A person whose negative experiences with sex has alienated them from their allo-romanticism Adfectual/Adfectusexual/Affectusexual/Adfsexual- A person whose sexual attraction is affected by their neurodivergency Aegosexual/Autochorissexual- A person with a disconnect between themselves and the target of their sexual attractions/desires Akoi(ne)sexual / Aposexual aka Lithsexual- A person who experiences sexual attraction to others but does not care or does not want that person to reciprocate Allosexual- A person who experiences sexual attractions Androgynosexual - A person who is attracted to androgynous people Androsexual - A person who is sexually attracted to males Antisexual - A person who is opposed to sexuality Apathsexual- A person who is indifferent/apathetic to sexual attraction Apothisexual - A person who does not experiences sexual attraction and does not want others to be sexually involved with them Apressexual- A person who only experiences a sexual attraction after another form of attraction is felt. The original attraction may or may not fade/be replaced by the new attraction. Autosexual - A person who is sexually attracted to oneself, or a person who can experience sexual satisfaction mainly through masturbation Bellussexual- A person who enjoys the endearing aesthetics of romance/sexual courtship but does not want a sexual relationship. Boreasexual- A person who has a set sexual orientation but with an exception Burstsexual - A person who experiences sudden idiopathic and sporadic episodes of sexual attraction. Caedsexual/Kalossexual- A person who used to experience sexual attractions, but no longer does due to past trauma. Cupiosexual - A person who does not experience sexual attractions but wants to be in a sexual relationship Demisexual - A person who only become sexually attracted to someone else after creating a strong emotional bond with that person. The sexual attraction does not exist before the two have created an emotional bond. (opposite of fraysexual) Ensenisexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction and/or desire only when feeling very emotional. The emotions could include sadness, anxiety/fear, anger, jealousy, humiliation, compassion, joy, etc. Fraysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to others inversely proportional to their familiarity with said person. The sexual attraction decreases as they become more emotionally involved. (opposite of demisexual) Gray-asexual - A person whose sexuality is somewhere in between sexual and asexual, can have many different definitions Gynosexual - A person who is sexually attracted to females Heteroflexible - A person who is heterosexual but willing to engage in a homosexual relationship/activity on occasion. Homoflexible - A person who is homosexual but willing to engage in a heterosexual relationship/activity on occasion. Hypersexual - A person who experiences a high degree of sexual attractions. Hyposexual - A person who experiences a low degree of sexual attractions. Nebulasexual - A person who has a hard time or cannot tell sexual attraction apart from platonic due to being quoirorsexual or due to their neurodivergency. Novisexual - A person who experiences a complicated sexual attraction (or lack thereof) such that they do not feel it can be described in a single term Omniasexual / Omnia / Omniaelxi - A person who does not experience sexual, romantic, sensual, or aesthetic attractions. Placiosexual - A person who wishes to perform sexual acts toward others, but does not want to receive sexual acts toward themselves Post rubor - A person who quickly gets crushes/squishes/etc on others, but after the initial excitement of said crush/etc vanishes, so do their feelings. Polysexual - A person who experiences sexual attraction to people they perceive of one of multiple different genders Proquusexual - A masculine person who only experiences sexual attractions to those perceived as also being masculine. Quassexual - A person who experiences nontraditional sexual attractions Quoisexual aka WTFsexuals - A person who has trouble distinguishing between sexual attraction and other forms of attraction (platonic, romantic, etc.) Requiesssexual - A person who does not experiences sexual attraction due to emotional exhaustion Sapiosexual - A person who is sexually attracted to people who they perceive to be intelligent. Skoliosexual/Ceterosexual - A person who experiences sexual attractions toward people that have an a nonbinary gender. Zedsexual - A person who is not asexual. (Alternative term for allosexual) Here is a list compiled by the government (!) of New Zealand: Quote Code Descriptor Synonym 01 Heterosexual 01 Breeder 01 Cishet 01 Cissexual 01 Het 01 Hetero 01 Heterosexual 01 Hetro 01 Hetrosexual 01 Interested in the opposite sex 01 Interested in the other sex 01 Man who has sex with wife 01 Man who has sex with women 01 MSW 01 Opposite sex 01 Straight 01 Straight person 01 Strait 01 Woman who has sex with husband 01 Woman who has sex with men 01 WSM 02 Homosexual 02 Butch 02 Femme 02 Gay 02 Gay female 02 Gay male 02 Gay man 02 Gay woman 02 Homo 02 Homosexual 02 Lesbian 02 Lesbo 02 Man loving man 02 Man who has sex with men 02 MSM 02 Same sex 02 Same sex attracted 02 Sapphic 02 Woman loving woman 02 Woman who has sex with women 02 WSW 03 Bisexual 03 Ambisexual 03 Bi 03 Bi female 03 Bi male 03 Bisexual 03 Bisexual female 03 Bisexual male 03 Swing both ways 09 Sexual identity not elsewhere classified 09 Abro 09 Abrosexual 09 Ace 09 Aegosexual 09 Aikāne 09 Akoi 09 Akoisexual 09 Allo 09 Allosexual 09 Andro 09 Androgynosexual 09 Androsexual 09 Asexual 09 Auto 09 Autochorissexual 09 Autosexual 09 Bicurious 09 Cetero 09 Ceterosexual 09 Cupiosexual 09 Demisexual 09 Duo 09 Duosexual 09 Fem 09 Femsexual 09 Fin 09 Finsexual 09 Fray 09 Fraysexual 09 Gray 09 Gray ace 09 Gray asexual 09 Gray-A 09 Graysexual 09 Grey 09 Grey ace 09 Grey asexual 09 Grey-A 09 Greysexual 09 Gyne 09 Gynesexual 09 Lith 09 Lithsexual 09 Merc 09 Mercsexual 09 Mono 09 Monosexual 09 Omni 09 Omnisexual 09 Pan 09 Pansexual 09 Poly 09 Polysexual 09 Pomo 09 Pomosexual 09 Queer 09 Robo 09 Robosexual 09 Sapio 09 Sapiosexual 09 Selfsexual 09 Skolio 09 Skoliosexual 09 Spectra 09 Spectrasexual 09 Takataapui 09 Takatāpui 44 Don't know 44 Unsure 55 Refused to answer 55 None of your business 77 Response unidentifiable 77 All of the above 77 Anything goes 77 Celibate 77 Chaste 77 Christian 77 Fluid 77 Heteroflexible 77 Homoflexible 77 Human 77 Lesbigay 77 LGBT 77 Man 77 Married 77 Me 77 Metrosexual 77 Monogamous 77 No label 77 None 77 Normal 77 Not gay 77 Nothing 77 Ordinary 77 Religious 77 Single 77 Standard 77 Typical 77 Virgin 77 Woman 88 Response outside scope 88 Aromantic 88 Biromantic 88 Heteroromantic 88 Homoromantic 88 Intersex 88 Panromantic 88 Trans 88 Transexual 88 Transgender 99 Not stated "Ecosexual" is notably absent from the foregoing list. Just a matter of time, I suppose. Also notable was this story about the foregoing list: Quote Statistics NZ released a new statistical standard for sexual identity (how a person thinks about their own sexuality and the terms they identify with) on Tuesday. In classifying sexual identity, Stats NZ will collect data under nine categories, including refusing to answer and being unsure, but allows for only three identifying words - heterosexual, homosexual (specifically gay and lesbian) or bisexual. All other words someone may use are recorded under code 09 - sexual identity not elsewhere classified. This means if you were to fill out a form that asked for your sexuality, and do not identify as straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual, your answer would be recorded as 09. Data collected for this group would not be released separately and instead would be aggregated. The list of identities covered by the classification 09 includes common identities like asexual, pansexual, queer and takatāpui. But these sexual orientations are lumped in with "pedo" and "pedosexual", which also fall under the 09 code. 'Pedo', or 'pedosexual', are words used for someone who is a paedophile. "Pedosexual is not a recognised sexual orientation identity at all, in any of the research anywhere. It does not count as a sexual orientation,' said Dr Lara Marie Greaves, lecturer in New Zealand politics and public policy at the University of Auckland. Awkward. See also here: Quote There’s a lot of talk and press these days about the LGBTQIA movement. This letter string represents an acronym of the first letters in a growing list of sexual identities such as Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered/Queer/Questioning/Intersexual/Asexual/Androgynous. With all the confusion and politicization surrounding the issue, it’s very hard to know where to begin and, like the expanding list of initials in the moniker, where it will all finally end. And on and on and on. Is "Grey asexual" on equal footing with "homosexual" in terms of being a "sexual identity"? Why or why not? How about "ecosexual"? How about "Sapiosexual"? Back in 2021, Hamba made the following comment: Quote Quote It does make me wonder if the rate of being physiologically LGBTQ has increased or if the acceptance and ability to identify it has increased. About 20 years ago, I read a scholarly analysis of how the politically motivated decision to ground the gay rights movement on a 'physiological' argument contained within it the seeds of its own inevitable deconstruction. We may be seeing the early stages of that development. ... The researcher who wrote the piece that I read was very pro-equality and worried that the movement had traded away sustainable, long-term progress for the exciting rush of early legal success. And here (referencing this 2017 BBC article) : Quote Quote I obviously have no idea whether your friend is gay or straight. And I doubt you do either. I do. He's neither. Nor is he 'bisexual'. He's just himself, i.e. perfectly normal. I understand the political utility of trying to keep forcing a fictional gay/straight divide on humankind, but it's already starting to unravel, and we may both live to see it completely self-deconstruct. From the BBC article that I linked to above: Quote Heterosexuality, argues Katz, “is invented within discourse as that which is outside discourse. It’s manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time.” That is, it’s a construction, but it pretends it isn’t. As any French philosopher or child with a Lego set will tell you, anything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed, as well. If heterosexuality didn’t exist in the past, then it doesn’t need to exist in the future. I was recently caught off guard by Jane Ward, author of Not Gay, who, during an interview for a piece I wrote on sexual orientation, asked me to think about the future of sexuality. “What would it mean to think about people’s capacity to cultivate their own sexual desires, in the same way we might cultivate a taste for food?” Though some might be wary of allowing for the possibility of sexual fluidity, it’s important to realise that various Born This Way arguments aren’t accepted by the most recent science. Researchers aren’t sure what “causes” homosexuality, and they certainly reject any theories that posit a simple origin, such as a “gay gene” ... Beyond Ward’s question is a subtle challenge: If we’re uncomfortable with considering whether and how much power we have over our sexualities, why might that be? Similarly, why might we be uncomfortable with challenging the belief that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature? ... The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Men and women will continue to have different-genital sex with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, as a way of life, as an identity – may well die out long before then. I could be wrong, but I believe that Church leaders are well positioned for these developments. I'm less confident that many Church members and our critics are. "{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed, as well. If heterosexuality didn’t exist in the past, then it doesn’t need to exist in the future." "{W}hy might we be uncomfortable with challenging the belief that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature?" "The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one." I think these questions and statements about "sexual identity" are increasing. "Heterosexuality, argues Katz, 'is invented within discourse as that which is outside discourse. It’s manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time.'" The same can be said for the concept of "homosexuality" and every other "sexual identity." "{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed." If this deconstruction happens, I doubt it will be based on some sort of organized effort, as the concept has, for some years now, been fraying at the edges and will likely come apart at the seams. We've already seen some indications of this, and it's not like it hasn't been anticipated. See, e.g., this 1995 (!) article: Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma From the abstract: Quote Drawing on debates in lesbian and gay periodicals and writings from and about post-structuralist "queer theory " and politics, this paper clarifies the meanings and distinctive politics of "queerness," in order to trace its implications for social movement theory and research. The challenge of queer theory and politics, I argue, is primarily in its disruption of sex and gender identity boundaries and deconstruction of identity categories. The debates (over the use of the term "queer" and over bisexual and transgender inclusion) raise questions not only about the content of sexuality-based political identities, but over their viability and usefulness. This in turn challenges social movement theory to further articulate dynamics of collective identity formation and deployment. While recent social movement theory has paid attention to the creation and negotiation of collective identity, it has not paid sufficient attention to the simultaneous impulse to destabilize identities from within. That tendency, while especially visible in lesbian and gay movements, is also visible in other social movements. It calls attention to a general dilemma of identity politics: Fixed identity categories are both the basis for oppression and the basis for political power. The insights of both sides of the dilemma highlighted here raise important new questions for social movement theory and research. "The challenge of queer theory and politics {} is primarily in its disruption of sex and gender identity boundaries and deconstruction of identity categories." "The debates (over the use of the term 'queer' and over bisexual and transgender inclusion) raise questions not only about the content of sexuality-based political identities, but over their viability and usefulness." "While recent social movement theory has paid attention to the creation and negotiation of collective identity, it has not paid sufficient attention to the simultaneous impulse to destabilize identities from within." Yep. From the body of the article: Quote Dig deeper into debates over queerness, however, and something more interesting and significant emerges. Queerness in its most distinctive forms shakes the ground on which gay and lesbian politics has been built, taking apart the ideas of a "sexual minority" and a "gay com munity," indeed of "gay" and "lesbian" and even "man" and "woman."' It builds on central difficulties of identity-based organizing: the instability of identities both individual and collective, their made-up yet necessary character. It exaggerates and explodes these troubles, haphazardly attempting to build a politics from the rubble of deconstructed collective categories. This debate, and other related debates in lesbian and gay politics, is not only over the content of collective identity (whose definition of "gay" counts?), but over the everyday viability and political usefulness of sexual identities (is there and should there be such a thing as "gay," "lesbian," "man," "woman"?). This paper, using internal debates from lesbian and gay politics as illustration, brings to the fore a key dilemma in contemporary identity politics and traces out its implications for social movement theory and research.2 As I will show in greater detail, in these sorts of debates-which crop up in other communities as well-two different political impulses, and two different forms of organizing, can be seen facing off. The logic and political utility of deconstructing collective categories vie with that of shoring them up; each logic is true, and neither is fully tenable. "{T}wo different forms of organizing, can be seen facing off. The logic and political utility of deconstructing collective categories vie with that of shoring them up; each logic is true, and neither is fully tenable." Quote On the one hand, lesbians and gay men have made themselves an effective force in this country over the past several decades largely by giving themselves what civil rights movements had: a public collective identity. Gay and lesbian social movements have built a quasi ethnicity, complete with its own political and cultural institutions, festivals, neighborhoods, even its own flag. Underlying that ethnicity is typically the notion that what gays and lesbians share-the anchor of minority status and minority rights claims-is the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires. The shared oppression, these movements have forcefully claimed, is the denial of the freedoms and opportunities to actualize this self. In this ethnic/essentialist politic,3 clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain. As I understand it, "lesbians and gay men" came together to build "a quasi ethnicity" because doing so was politically necessary. As an "ethnic/essentialist politic," this movement required "clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain." That is, the community must have a "minority status and minority rights" based on something akin to an ethnicity. Here, that common trait is, ostensibly, "the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires." Okay. So far, so good. However, can the notion of "sexual identity" hold itself together as a system of "clear categories of collective identity"? It seems . . . not, as evidenced by the proliferation of "sexual identities," including - but clearly not limited to - some of the lists provided above. The "lesbians" and "gays" have not been able to close the door behind them. First came the "B" ("bisexual"), then the "T" ("trans"). And then, later on, "Q" and "I" and "A" and "+" and "++" were added. And the list, it seems, will never end. See, e.g., this November 2023 article: Quote The Complete Guide to the LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA Acronym All you need to know about one of the longest LGBTQ+ acronyms What does LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA stand for? If you’ve been seeing the acronym LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA around lately, you may be wondering what it stands for. This long acronym represents a huge diverse range of identities and orientations in the LGBTQ+ community. More specifically, it stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning, Curious, Asexual, Pansexual, Gender-Nonconforming, Gender-Fluid, Non-Binary, and Androgynous. It’s important to note that there are tons of other identities that don’t fit into this acronym (or this article), but are still completely valid. Let’s dive in! "{T}here are tons of other identities that don’t fit into this acronym (or this article), but are still completely valid." So much for "clear categories of collective identity." The 1995 article saw this coming: Quote Yet this impulse to build a collective identity with distinct group boundaries has been met by a directly opposing logic, often contained in queer activism (and in the newly anointed "queer theory"): to take apart the identity categories and blur group boundaries. This alternative angle, influenced by academic "constructionist" thinking, holds that sexual identities are historical and social products, not natural or intrapsychic ones. It is socially produced binaries (gay/straight, man/woman) that are the basis of oppression; fluid, unstable experiences of self become fixed primarily in the service of social control. Disrupting those categories, refusing rather than embracing ethnic minority status, is the key to liberation. In this deconstructionist politic, clear collective categories are an obstacle to resistance and change. The challenge for analysts, I argue, is not to determine which position is accurate, but to cope with the fact that both logics make sense. Queerness spotlights a dilemma shared by other identity movements (racial, ethnic, and gender movements, for example):4 Fixed identity categories are both the basis for oppression and the basis for political power. This raises questions for political strategizing and, more importantly for the purposes here, for social movement analysis. If identities are indeed much more unstable, fluid, and constructed than movements have tended to assume-if one takes the queer challenge seriously, that is what happens to identity-based social movements such as gay and lesbian rights? Must sociopolitical struggles articulated through identity eventually undermine themselves? Social movement theory, a logical place to turn for help in working through the impasse between deconstructive cultural strategies and category-supportive political strategies, is hard pressed in its current state to cope with these questions. The case of queerness, I will argue, calls for a more developed theory of collective identity formation and its relationship to both institutions and meanings, an understanding that includes the impulse to take apart that identity from within. It is interesting to see what has played out since 1995. This next excerpt pertains to the then-somewhat-recent inclusion of the "B" and "T": Quote Debates Over Bisexuality and Transgender: Queer Deconstructionist Politics Despite the aura of newness, then, not much appears new in recent queerness debate; the fault lines on which they are built are old ones in lesbian and gay (and other identity based) movements. Yet letter writers agree on one puzzling point: Right now, it matters what we are called and what we call ourselves. "{T}t matters what we are called and what we call ourselves." Hence the endlessly-expanding "LGBTQIA++" acronym. Quote But even identity battles are not especially new. In fact, within lesbian-feminist and gay male organizing, the meanings of "lesbian" and "gay" were contested almost as soon as they began to have political currency as quasi-ethnic statuses. ... The ultimate challenge of queerness, however, is not just the questioning of the content of collective identities, but the questioning of the unity, stability, viability, and political utility of sexual identities - even as they are used and assumed. 4 The radical provocation from queer politics, one which many pushing queerness seem only remotely aware of, is not to resolve that difficulty, but to exaggerate and build on it. It is an odd endeavor, much like pulling the rug out from under one's own feet, not knowing how and where one will land. The article goes on to describe then-contemporary debates about the inclusion of bisexual and transgender people in the "community": Quote Strikingly, nearly all the letters are written by, to, and about women-a point to which I will later return. "A woman's willingness to sleep with men allows her access to jobs, money, power, status," writes one group of women. "This access does not disappear just because a woman sleeps with women 'too'... That's not bisexuality, that's compulsory heterosexual ity." You are not invited; you will leave and betray us. We are already here, other women respond, and it is you who betray us with your back-stabbing and your silencing. "Why have so many bisexual women felt compelled to call themselves lesbians for so long? Do you think biphobic attitudes like yours might have something to do with it?" asks a woman named Kristen. "It is our community, too; we've worked in it, we've suffered for it, we belong in it. We will not accept the role of the poor relation." Kristen ends her letter tellingly, deploying a familiar phrase: "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it."16 The letters run back and forth similarly over transgender issues, in particular over transsexual lesbians who want to participate in lesbian organizing. "'Transsexuals' don't want to just be lesbians," Bev Jo writes, triggering a massive round of letters, "but insist, with all the arrogance and presumption of power that men have, on going where they are not wanted and trying to destroy lesbian gatherings." There are surely easier ways to oppress a woman, other women shoot back, than to risk physical pain and social isolation. You are doing exactly what anti-female and anti-gay oppressors do to us, others add. "Must we all bring our birth certificates and two witnesses to women's events in the future?" asks a wo man named Karen. "If you feel threatened by the mere existence of a type of person, and wish to exclude them for your comfort, you are a bigot, by every definition of the term." These "border skirmishes" over membership conditions and group boundaries have histories preceding the letters (Stein 1992; see also Taylor and Whittier 1992), and also reflect the growing power of transgender and bisexual organizing.17 Although they are partly battles of position, more fundamentally the debates make concrete the anxiety queerness can provoke. They spotlight the possibility that sexual and gender identities are not the solid political ground they have been thought to be-which perhaps accounts for the particularly frantic tone of the letters. Many arguing for exclusion write like a besieged border patrol. "Live your lives the way you want and spread your hatred of women while you're at it, if you must," writes a participant in the transgender letter spree, "but the fact is we're here, we're dykes and you're not. Deal with it." The Revolting Lesbians argue similarly in their contribution to the Bay Times bisexuality debate: "Bisexuals are not lesbians-they are bisexuals. Why isn't that obvious to everyone? Sleeping with women 'too' does not make you a lesbian. We must hang onto the identity and visibility we've struggled so hard to obtain." Lesbians being accused of having "biphobic attitudes" and being "bigot{s}" for not wanting biological males "where they are not wanted and trying to destroy lesbian gatherings." "Many arguing for exclusion {of bisexual/transgender people from the gay/lesbian community/movement} write like a besieged border patrol." This is an apt metaphor, I think, because "sexual identity" is not a coherent "border." Again, look at the endless proliferation of the acronym. "Sexual identity," I think, fails to coherently create "clear categories of collective identity." Or as the article put it: "{S}exual and gender identities are not the solid political ground they have been thought to be." And this was in 1995. Anyhoo, the thesis that "sexual identity" is a "social construct," and historically speaking, a very new construct. It has achieved near-hegemonic notoriety in many Western societies. As Hamba put it, this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility." As a social construct, it can be deconstructed, or set aside by the individual, or subordinated. Again, Hamba has correctly noted that "the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and that "{c}onsequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity." I therefore submit that it is possible, even desirable, for Latter-day Saints who are sexually attracted to those of their own sex to choose to set aside for themselves notions of "sexual identity," or else subordinate that identity, and choose to prioritize love of (and, therefore, obedience to) God in relation to their sexual behavior. I understand that this is not a popular position. I'm okay with that. Again from Hamba: Quote The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those, like you, who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity -- but it is a position far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination. It also is in harmony with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic. More to the point, I think "{t}he Church's position" in teaching the Law of Chastity is congruent with God's will. Thanks, -Smac
Daniel2 Posted April 1 Author Posted April 1 (edited) On 3/31/2024 at 7:36 AM, Daniel2 said: Interesting. The post (and the rest of them in this thread) indicate to me that you definitely spend a LOT more time and energy centered around “sexual identities” than I do. The more I read your words and how you frame things, the more I’m convinced that by your definitions, I’m actually already NOT gay or homosexual, because those you describe as having chosen to identify as having “a sexual identity” don’t resonate with me or describe my life at all. According to how you see and define yourself and your wife, I’m just a non-sexually-identity-self-identifying guy that simply happens to be happily married to my husband. Two genuine questions: if you don’t believe you have/have accepted or embraced any social construct of being a straight/heterosexual man yourself, what DOES it specifically look like/mean when someone accepts/embraces having a socially-constructed sexual identity—either straight, gay, or bi? Conversely, what specifically does it look like/mean to reject accepting/embracing either of the above said “socially constructed sexual identities”? From what I understand, you don’t self-identify with any sexual identity, even though you’re happily married to your wife. Is that right? Smac, based on the sheer volume and detail of your posting habits, as well as the pattern and timing of such, I wonder—do you get paid or otherwise compensated to post here as some outreach program of the Church, FAIR, or some subsidiary or similarly-related endeavors? I believe you’re too young to be retired… I struggle to imagine how someone can be as prolific as you in the timing and density of your posts and still have time for even a fraction of a paid regular 40 hour work week. I certainly respect your privacy should you wish to abstain from answering-I’ll just remain in awe of how much content you are able to search for, compile, and churn out. Edited April 1 by Daniel2
smac97 Posted April 1 Posted April 1 21 hours ago, Teancum said: Can you please clarify something for me? What is your position on homosexuality and heterosexuality. Do you view it as a choice? "It" being . . . what? If you mean a person's sexual attraction/proclivities, I think biological determinism is not the sole factor (though it clearly is, or can be, a predominant one). From the Church's website: Quote The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.” Alternatively if by "it" you are referring to "sexual identity," then I think my position has been pretty clear. It's a social construct of recent historical creation, and which has achieved social, legal and cultural ascendancy for (mostly) political purposes, and that it can be set aside or subordinated as an "identity" in favor of a more important one. 21 hours ago, Teancum said: Or is it something we are born with. I understand, at least based on what I have read, that there is a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires. Hence some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other, so to speak. I am currently trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity." 21 hours ago, Teancum said: But it seems to me that based on at least our best current understanding, sexual preferences are not a choice for most of us. That seems to be the "master narrative" described in the above article: Quote Sexual orientation is popularly defined as an enduring aspect of one’s self based on a pattern of attraction to men, women, or people regardless of gender (American Psychological Association, Citation2019). Indeed, the “master narrative” of sexual orientation posits static categories of sexual orientation that develop early and remain stable over time (Diamond, Citation2006). However, a growing body of literature reveals that sexual behavior, attractions, and identity do change over time (Diamond, Citation2016; Katz-Wise & Todd, Citation2022). Rather than categorizing sexual orientation as static categories, this alternative model of sexual fluidity argues that these dimensions can change in response to situational, interpersonal, and societal factors (Diamond, Citation2008b; Diamond et al., Citation2017). Since Diamond’s seminal work, sexual fluidity research has exponentially increased, with research across multiple populations and dimensions of fluidity (Katz-Wise & Todd, Citation2022). So whether "sexual fluidity" occurs or not may be more properly construed as arising from the individual's "situational, interpersonal, and societal factors," as opposed to simply a matter of "choice." 21 hours ago, Teancum said: I have 0 desire romantically or sexually towards a man. Same here. But is that purely a matter of "(non)-choice"? Or can this "change in response to situational, interpersonal, and societal factors" (which, I think, would include both volitional and non-volitional responses)? 21 hours ago, Teancum said: It just is something that is not within me. And that is how I think I have always been. I could not choose to marry a man. Same here. 21 hours ago, Teancum said: Marrying a man would not chance my sexual identity. As I noted previously: "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" 21 hours ago, Teancum said: I would not be happy. It would not work. I suspect the same would be said if I tried this. 21 hours ago, Teancum said: I can be close emotionally to another man, in a deep friendship sort of way. But that is it. It seems to me you are arguing that sexual preferences are a choice. Please correct me if I misunderstand. You reference here "sexual preference." A "preference" is, by definition, a product of the individual's free will. His choice: Quote prefer [ pri-fur ]SHOW IPA verb (used with object),pre·ferred, pre·fer·ring. to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken. Law. to give priority, as to one creditor over another. Elsewhere you reference "homosexuality and heterosexuality," "a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires," "some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other" and so on. My focus has been about the concept of "sexual identity," not "sexual attraction." The difference, for me, is that the former purports to be what the person is, whereas the latter is what the person experiences/feels. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 1 Posted April 1 23 hours ago, Teancum said: Quote Until and unless the innovation that is "sexual identity" is set aside or subordinated. Then the dilemma is resolved or mitigated. What construct that you insist I am not "insist{ing}" that anyone do anything. I am presenting an idea, a proposal. That's all. 23 hours ago, Teancum said: should be set aside seemingly is your own construct Hardly. If "sexual identity" is a social construct, then it can be deconstructed. I am far from the first to note this. I have quoted quite a few sources (several of them "queer" writers) who have spoken on this topic. 23 hours ago, Teancum said: and based on the comments be another poster here. Hamba helpfully compiled some references, and then added his own thoughts. I have taken those and added some more references and some of my own thoughts. 23 hours ago, Teancum said: Why are you or he the authority on this? I haven't claimed to be an authority, nor have I cited Hamba as an authority. I find his reasoning sound and persuasive and evidence-based. He leans heavily on citations to, and extensive quotations of, "queer" historians and such, likely because they are "authorit{ies}" who cannot readily be accused of bigotry against LGBT folks (an all-too-common substitute for evidence and counter-argument). 23 hours ago, Teancum said: You really are creating a false dilemma here that you then use as an authoritative stick to verbally beat anyone who rejects it. I don't think so. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 1 Posted April 1 2 hours ago, Teancum said: SO would you agree that based on your argument that being and active Latter-day Saint is a social construct? Yes. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: And that for those who lead it they teach that the LDS social construct is supreme above all others? I don't know what you mean by "supreme above all others." "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (AoF 1:12.) 2 hours ago, Teancum said: That all others should be subordinated to the social construct(s) Mormonism imposes on a person? I don't know what you mean. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Is being LDS an identity? Yes, I think it is. For me, it is part of being "a child of God." Thanks, -Smac
Teancum Posted April 1 Posted April 1 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes. I don't know what you mean by "supreme above all others." "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (AoF 1:12.) I don't know what you mean. I mean your social construct as a Latter-day Saint is your primary identity. It supersedes seemingly almost all else for you. How you view the world, how you argue and defend the church. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes, I think it is. For me, it is part of being "a child of God." Thanks, -Smac It is your primary number one identity.
pogi Posted April 1 Posted April 1 (edited) I found your choice of quotes interesting given what you have said: On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: "{T}he adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people." Adoption of sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction? Wait, what? Are you now going above and beyond just setting aside social constructs of sexual identy and are proposing that people with same sex attraction "adopt" a heterosexual identity - which is itself a social construct? On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: "'{I}t is, of course, possible,' they write, 'to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.'" Again, this is something other than what you were proposing about setting aside social constructs of sexual identity, and instead seems to be advocating for adopting social constructs of sexual identity that may go extremely contrary to one's sexual attraction. It is just placing one sexual identity above the other as inherently better. That is just wrong and shaming. There is nothing inherently wrong with either identity as a way to express one's dominant attraction (which as you say may be as fluid as identity - so what?). On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: "{D}ozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior." Why are you highlighting this comment? Are you promoting transitioning as a viable solution? Haven't we learned our lessons about that yet through years of BYU experiments and trials? For some, fluidity seems realistic, for others there seems to be an overwhelming dominant attraction that changes little if any. There almost just as many accounts of people claiming they were "healed" from being gay through conversion therapy, and later suggest it was all just BS. For those who have claimed to be "healed", let's see how many can truly endure time. Listen to the once major leaders of the ex-gay community whom you once would have probably heralded as heroes of your theory (I highly recommend watching the whole documentary) : On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: "{T}he impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior." Ya, it would be terribly shaming to coerce someone's choices about sexual identity through social pressure/guilt/shame, wouldn't it? Remember when you said this: Quote It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel. I think this is dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary. Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity." Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced. Not only is the bolded portion false in that social constructs of sexual identity don't "require" the "exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel", but it is also incredibly shaming and socially coercive of sexual identity choices. Seems terribly ironic, doesn't it, given the quote you are highlighting? I will also note that before "modern" social constructs of sexual identity existed, the behavior didn't magically go away. If anything, it was more tolerated because there wasn't a word to shame, demean and other people with. On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: This makes no sense at all if sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable and innate and intrinsic aspect of each individual. However, it makes all sorts of sense if "sexual identity" is acknowledged for what it is: a social construct that "can shift over time." You are conflating "sexual orientation" in your first paragraph with "sexual identity" in the second. I agree that both are fluid, but I couldn't imagine just flipping my sexual orientation and identity because science says it can be fluid. I think most are like me where there is a dominant tendency throughout their lives. Some people may more readily be able to change or choose their orientation and identity than others, but others have been traumatized and have chosen to end their lives because they didn't see how they could change, even though they really wanted to. Here is some evidence on the success of sexual orientation AND sexual identity conversion therapy in the UK (2021): Quote This assessment looked at the nature, quality and quantity of evidence on conversion therapy to change sexual orientation and gender identity exclusively. It found that the evidence base for conversion therapy for sexual orientation is long-established, extending over 20 years, while for gender identity the evidence base is newer. Despite being fewer in number, studies looking at conversion therapy for gender identity were assessed as being stronger in design than those for sexual orientation. This is largely due to their larger sample sizes which can help to reduce sampling limitations. This assessment also found that research on conversion therapy is affected by methodological challenges. This limits the ability to say definitively what the impact of conversion therapy is. However, this report notes that the quality of evidence identified in this assessment is the highest that is achievable. While the evidence is predominantly based on self-reporting, consistent patterns were found which enable indicative conclusions to be found. These are that there is no robust evidence that conversion therapy can change sexual orientation or gender identity, and that conversion therapy is frequently associated with harm. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity#conclusion On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: "{O}penness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity." "{S}exual identity can be fluid into adulthood." These findings sure seem to merit some discussion. Sure, lets discuss it. How would removing modern constructs of sexual identity remove "openness to experiences"? It seems that people were probably more "open to experiences" before modern constructs of social identity so there doesn't seem to be any cause or even correlation here. On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: I am in favor of letting people choose, including whether or not the entirely set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else be "fluid" in it (including, notably, "toward and away from LGB+ identities"). Yep, this whole time you crap on the idea of sexual identity, but now you make it clear you are ok with it, as long as it is not gay. Push em back in the closet where they belong! "Sexual identity is ok for me. It is also ok for immoral heterosexual promiscuous and scandalous deviants to have a sexual identity, but it's not ok for you, because that's gross and might lead to immoral [forgetting about how immoral heterosexuals can be]." How realistic do you think it is to "set aside the notion of sexual identity" in a society that has embraced that social construct? That is like trying to get rid of pronouns (a social construct) all together, apart from the society around us that uses them. That is a joke! On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: Okay. Sexual attraction is something that one experiences, but I think it is not, or need not be, construed to be what one is. Unless they identify as heterosexual, then you are ok with that. You made that very clear above. On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said: But not as an "identity." That's the innovation under discussion. No it is not, you only have a problem with the innovation of gay sexual identity not the innovation of sexual identity in general. You have made that very clear above. Edited April 1 by pogi 2
The Nehor Posted April 1 Posted April 1 20 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said: I think the excesses were horrible (which is why God will judge those who committed atrocities) and I wish they hadn't happened because it casts a shadow on the good things that Christianity has brought to the entire world. My late wife's 3rd great-grandfather: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tiger I find it deeply weird that Latter-Day Saints are now stanning for apostate Christianity and how wonderful it is. Wow we have changed. 1
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 5 hours ago, smac97 said: For example, I recently came across the term "ecosexual." See, e.g., here: This discredits other sexual identities about as much as fundamentalist LDS churches discredit your own faith. Do you want to play the apologetics game that way? 5 hours ago, smac97 said: And here: The list of "sexual identities" is, it seems, endless. See, e.g., here: And here: And here: Here is a list compiled by the government (!) of New Zealand: Wow, you can google lists. Good job. Have a cookie. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: "Ecosexual" is notably absent from the foregoing list. Just a matter of time, I suppose. You suppose wrong and I suspect you know that. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Also notable was this story about the foregoing list: Awkward. Wait, are you suggesting governments can make stupid generalizations? WOW! Groundbreaking stuff here. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: See also here: And on and on and on. You aren’t confronting what most in the LGBT community believe. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Is "Grey asexual" on equal footing with "homosexual" in terms of being a "sexual identity"? Why or why not? It is not. It is an area on the asexual spectrum. One can be homosexual and graysexual. The best comparison is they are on different axes of the sexuality spectrum. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: How about "ecosexual"? A kink or a fetish depending on how intense it is. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: How about "Sapiosexual"? An insufferable designation most roll their eyes at. It is a preference, not a sexuality. It would be like saying being attracted to people with blond hair is a sexuality. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Back in 2021, Hamba made the following comment: And here (referencing this 2017 BBC article) : "{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed, as well. If heterosexuality didn’t exist in the past, then it doesn’t need to exist in the future." "{W}hy might we be uncomfortable with challenging the belief that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature?" "The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one." You can’t stop can you? Is this a kink or a fetish? 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I think these questions and statements about "sexual identity" are increasing. "Heterosexuality, argues Katz, 'is invented within discourse as that which is outside discourse. It’s manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time.'" The same can be said for the concept of "homosexuality" and every other "sexual identity." "{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed." If this deconstruction happens, I doubt it will be based on some sort of organized effort, as the concept has, for some years now, been fraying at the edges and will likely come apart at the seams. We've already seen some indications of this, and it's not like it hasn't been anticipated. See, e.g., this 1995 (!) article: Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma From the abstract: "The challenge of queer theory and politics {} is primarily in its disruption of sex and gender identity boundaries and deconstruction of identity categories." "The debates (over the use of the term 'queer' and over bisexual and transgender inclusion) raise questions not only about the content of sexuality-based political identities, but over their viability and usefulness." "While recent social movement theory has paid attention to the creation and negotiation of collective identity, it has not paid sufficient attention to the simultaneous impulse to destabilize identities from within." Yep. Wishful thinking. Good luck with that. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: From the body of the article: "{T}wo different forms of organizing, can be seen facing off. The logic and political utility of deconstructing collective categories vie with that of shoring them up; each logic is true, and neither is fully tenable." As I understand it, "lesbians and gay men" came together to build "a quasi ethnicity" because doing so was politically necessary. As an "ethnic/essentialist politic," this movement required "clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain." That is, the community must have a "minority status and minority rights" based on something akin to an ethnicity. Here, that common trait is, ostensibly, "the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires." Okay. So far, so good. Mostly they came together and created identities in order to make it easier to find sexual and romantic partners. Do you think gay and lesbian bars are primarily political venues? LOL 5 hours ago, smac97 said: However, can the notion of "sexual identity" hold itself together as a system of "clear categories of collective identity"? It seems . . . not, as evidenced by the proliferation of "sexual identities," including - but clearly not limited to - some of the lists provided above. The "lesbians" and "gays" have not been able to close the door behind them. First came the "B" ("bisexual"), then the "T" ("trans"). And then, later on, "Q" and "I" and "A" and "+" and "++" were added. And the list, it seems, will never end. See, e.g., this November 2023 article: Wrong. The B was there from the beginning of organizing. Transgender people and a lot of other queer people that don’t fit neatly into the L or G were also lumped into the B and were there from the beginning. Also the idea that lesbians and gays want to close the door behind them is silly. Also the myth of the community endlessly adding more letters is mostly a myth that our enemies tell themselves because it keep them warm at night or something. In general we welcome the people within the new letters. They were already affiliated with us. In general most still use LGBT or LGBTQ with the Q including all queer people. And yeah, some people make up silly sexualities. They don’t last nor are they heralds of the end of days for the movement. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: "{T}here are tons of other identities that don’t fit into this acronym (or this article), but are still completely valid." So much for "clear categories of collective identity." The 1995 article saw this coming: It is interesting to see what has played out since 1995. This next excerpt pertains to the then-somewhat-recent inclusion of the "B" and "T": WRONG! Bisexual was in there from pretty much the start of their being a bunch of letters. There was an internal struggle about whether to call it LGB or GLB. LGB won out. I also love the idea that we are collapsing because more groups are getting involved. “MWAHAHAAHAHAAHA! As more people rally to their banner they continue to weaken!!!!!!” Saturday morning cartoon villains have more competent plans. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: "{T}t matters what we are called and what we call ourselves." Hence the endlessly-expanding "LGBTQIA++" acronym. The article goes on to describe then-contemporary debates about the inclusion of bisexual and transgender people in the "community": Lesbians being accused of having "biphobic attitudes" and being "bigot{s}" for not wanting biological males "where they are not wanted and trying to destroy lesbian gatherings." "Many arguing for exclusion {of bisexual/transgender people from the gay/lesbian community/movement} write like a besieged border patrol." This is an apt metaphor, I think, because "sexual identity" is not a coherent "border." Again, look at the endless proliferation of the acronym. "Sexual identity," I think, fails to coherently create "clear categories of collective identity." Or as the article put it: "{S}exual and gender identities are not the solid political ground they have been thought to be." And this was in 1995. Yeah, and things have changed since 1995. The local gay male dungeon space in my area used to be an exclusively gay cismale gathering. Now it welcomes bisexual and transgender men. We are getting more inclusive. Appealing to our divisions from 30 years ago that have lessened is not proof of imminent collapse you silly silly man. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Anyhoo, the thesis that "sexual identity" is a "social construct," and historically speaking, a very new construct. It has achieved near-hegemonic notoriety in many Western societies. As Hamba put it, this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility." As a social construct, it can be deconstructed, or set aside by the individual, or subordinated. Again, Hamba has correctly noted that "the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and that "{c}onsequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity." I showed you specifically that sexual identities have existed in different forms throughout history. You declined to contest the point. You are at the point where you are just lying now. And again quoting Hamba……so pathetic. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I therefore submit that it is possible, even desirable, for Latter-day Saints who are sexually attracted to those of their own sex to choose to set aside for themselves notions of "sexual identity," or else subordinate that identity, and choose to prioritize love of (and, therefore, obedience to) God in relation to their sexual behavior. Your premises don’t support this conclusion. All you have is that sexual identities are transitory (you hope). You won’t confront the reality behind them. Instead you just blather on about things you don’t understand and show no desire to learn about. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I understand that this is not a popular position. I'm okay with that. It is an incoherent position. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Again from Hamba: Have you considered getting help for this addiction? 4
ZealouslyStriving Posted April 2 Posted April 2 58 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I find it deeply weird that Latter-Day Saints are now stanning for apostate Christianity and how wonderful it is. Wow we have changed. So that is what you got out of my post?? 🤦
teddyaware Posted April 2 Posted April 2 25 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I find it deeply weird that Latter-Day Saints are now stanning for apostate Christianity and how wonderful it is. Wow we have changed. I’m guessing you’re unaware of the fact that the church has lauded the reformers as heroes of faith for many years, and that great and courageous men of faith unconquerable, like William Tyndall, laid the necessary groundwork for the successful restoration of the gospel and the reestablishment kingdom of God? In fact, for many years the church has called this great period of preparation for the restoration of the gospel “The Great Prologue.” . And if this weren’t enough, the Book of Mormon testifies that there were many brave and inspired men and women of God who played additional indispensable rolls in making the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ possible, and to this end the Lord strengthened and inspired them with his spirit . I presume it’s been a while since you’ve read and retained in memory the following verses from the Book of Mormon that testify there were many who were spiritually inspired and blessed of God prior to the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith? It’s no accident that all of these great spiritual forerunners believed in Jesus Christ 13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters… 15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance… 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. (1 Nephi 13) 1
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 5 hours ago, smac97 said: "It" being . . . what? If you mean a person's sexual attraction/proclivities, I think biological determinism is not the sole factor (though it clearly is, or can be, a predominant one). From the Church's website: Alternatively if by "it" you are referring to "sexual identity," then I think my position has been pretty clear. It's a social construct of recent historical creation, and which has achieved social, legal and cultural ascendancy for (mostly) political purposes, and that it can be set aside or subordinated as an "identity" in favor of a more important one. Not primarily for political purposes. Absolutely not. It was for people making sense of themselves. Are you a Latter-Day Saint primarily for political purposes? Wait, that might be a bad example. Do you think most members of the church identify as Latter-Day Saints for political purposes? That avoids that problem. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I am currently trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity." You don’t understand sexual fluidity. Stop pretending you do. You are arguing that identities must be permanent to be valid and that sexual identities must be permanent or that are not ‘valid’. Of course by this standard Latter-Day Saint is not a valid identity since you can gain it and also voluntarily or involuntarily lose it. I would argue sexual identities have more permanence. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: That seems to be the "master narrative" described in the above article: So whether "sexual fluidity" occurs or not may be more properly construed as arising from the individual's "situational, interpersonal, and societal factors," as opposed to simply a matter of "choice." So many scare quotes I have no idea what you are even trying to say but I am pretty sure it is all wrong. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Same here. But is that purely a matter of "(non)-choice"? Or can this "change in response to situational, interpersonal, and societal factors" (which, I think, would include both volitional and non-volitional responses)? So being gay is a choice again? Hello darkness my old friend I’ve come to talk to you again 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Same here. As I noted previously: "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" Yet you act as if you have one. What is the difference? 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I suspect the same would be said if I tried this. You reference here "sexual preference." A "preference" is, by definition, a product of the individual's free will. His choice: That is not true at all. I prefer beef over fish. I couldn’t choose to like fish more. One of the meanings is to just “like better”. That doesn’t demand a choice. And you know that when someone is talking about sexual preferences they aren’t talking about what you choose to want today….except maybe for some bi/pan people I suppose. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Elsewhere you reference "homosexuality and heterosexuality," "a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires," "some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other" and so on. My focus has been about the concept of "sexual identity," not "sexual attraction." The difference, for me, is that the former purports to be what the person is, whereas the latter is what the person experiences/feels. This isn’t how much of the LGBT community views this. This is you projecting again instead of listening and learning. There is a chance that my attractions will shift and I will drop the bisexual label and call myself straight or gay. I don’t expect this to happen but it is possible. You seem to think we see these things as writ in stone. If I wake up tomorrow and my attraction for men is gone I can identify as straight. My bisexual friends will not rise up to villify me for betraying myself. Nor will I hate what I once was. Last year a lesbian friend of mine found herself in love with a guy. She panicked a lot having no idea how to deal with it. Her friends helped her and she identifies as bi now. She still finds a lot more women attractive than she does men but she is enamored with her bf and he feels the same about her. So the labels are an indication of who you are but they can change because we change. And those changes are often not an exercise of what members of the church would call agency. Your attacks on identity based on all of us thinking they are permanently fixed just don’t make sense. 2
Peacefully Posted April 2 Posted April 2 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Not primarily for political purposes. Absolutely not. It was for people making sense of themselves. Are you a Latter-Day Saint primarily for political purposes? Wait, that might be a bad example. Do you think most members of the church identify as Latter-Day Saints for political purposes? That avoids that problem. You don’t understand sexual fluidity. Stop pretending you do. You are arguing that identities must be permanent to be valid and that sexual identities must be permanent or that are not ‘valid’. Of course by this standard Latter-Day Saint is not a valid identity since you can gain it and also voluntarily or involuntarily lose it. I would argue sexual identities have more permanence. So many scare quotes I have no idea what you are even trying to say but I am pretty sure it is all wrong. So being gay is a choice again? Hello darkness my old friend I’ve come to talk to you again Yet you act as if you have one. What is the difference? That is not true at all. I prefer beef over fish. I couldn’t choose to like fish more. One of the meanings is to just “like better”. That doesn’t demand a choice. And you know that when someone is talking about sexual preferences they aren’t talking about what you choose to want today….except maybe for some bi/pan people I suppose. This isn’t how much of the LGBT community views this. This is you projecting again instead of listening and learning. There is a chance that my attractions will shift and I will drop the bisexual label and call myself straight or gay. I don’t expect this to happen but it is possible. You seem to think we see these things as writ in stone. If I wake up tomorrow and my attraction for men is gone I can identify as straight. My bisexual friends will not rise up to villify me for betraying myself. Nor will I hate what I once was. Last year a lesbian friend of mine found herself in love with a guy. She panicked a lot having no idea how to deal with it. Her friends helped her and she identifies as bi now. She still finds a lot more women attractive than she does men but she is enamored with her bf and he feels the same about her. So the labels are an indication of who you are but they can change because we change. And those changes are often not an exercise of what members of the church would call agency. Your attacks on identity based on all of us thinking they are permanently fixed just don’t make sense. So instead of praying the gay away, you should just click your heels, and try really hard to move the fluid needle the other way. You just haven’t tried hard enough, apparently, smh 🤦♀️
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 9 minutes ago, teddyaware said: I’m guessing you’re unaware of the fact that the church has lauded the reformers as heroes of faith for many years, and that great and courageous men of faith unconquerable, like William Tyndall, laid the necessary groundwork for the successful restoration of the gospel and the reestablishment kingdom of God? In fact, for many years the church has called this great period of preparation for the restoration of the gospel “The Great Prologue.” . And if this weren’t enough, the Book of Mormon testifies that there were many brave and inspired men and women of God who played additional indispensable rolls in making the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ possible, and to this end the Lord strengthened and inspired them with his spirit . I presume it’s been a while since you’ve read and retained in memory the following verses from the Book of Mormon that testify there were many who were spiritually inspired and blessed of God prior to the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith? It’s no accident that all of these great spiritual forerunners believed in Jesus Christ 13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters… 15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance… 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. (1 Nephi 13) We have a long history of not trusting other Christian faiths. When I grew up we knew which of the local churches were ANTI and they were. They are still out there but members seem to now think that they are allies due to some shared interests. I am cynical enough to be waiting for them to plunge in with the knife. As to the Book of Mormon that doesn’t sound like it is about Christians. While the liberal democracy established by the Founders had its roots in Puritan teachings it was only when the Puritan faith was weakened and the overt religious elements ironed out that the captives defeated the mother Gentiles. The Founders were followers of the Enlightenment when they formed the new nation and didn’t form it as Christians (though some of them were Christians of course). Those passages talk about Gentiles and not Christians. 1
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, Peacefully said: So instead of praying the gay away, you should just click your heels, and try really hard to move the fluid needle the other way. You just haven’t tried hard enough, apparently, smh 🤦♀️ I actually tried that at one point. Both the praying and fixating on one half of my attraction to weaken the other. Clearly the problem is that I gave up just because it wasn’t working and was doing a number on my mental and emotional health. Should have sacrificed that health and kept going! 😜
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: So that is what you got out of my post?? 🤦 Out of politeness I didn’t want to go into detail on how exporting western European sexual and gender mores to a large fraction of the planet’s inhabitants isn’t quite a win for the cause of good. It hasn’t stopped either. Some prominent Christian religious figures today have blood on their hands from exporting and continuing to export their hatred. 1
MustardSeed Posted April 2 Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I actually tried that at one point. Both the praying and fixating on one half of my attraction to weaken the other. Clearly the problem is that I gave up just because it wasn’t working and was doing a number on my mental and emotional health. Should have sacrificed that health and kept going! 😜 How does that work exactly? I’m uneducated. It sounds like you’re saying that being bisexual doesn’t allow you to lean into your attraction for women. Does that mean you cannot be fulfilled and be committed to one partner?
The Nehor Posted April 2 Posted April 2 14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: How does that work exactly? I’m uneducated. It sounds like you’re saying that being bisexual doesn’t allow you to lean into your attraction for women. Does that mean you cannot be fulfilled and be committed to one partner? I can’t get rid of my attraction to men or weaken it. I have to control it a lot in some environments. I probably could be happy with one partner. I am not sure. My wild and crazy young adulthood doesn’t support that hypothesis (I was pretty poly in that era) but I have changed so it might work. I realistically don’t expect to find a woman in the church to marry. It is common in bisexuals to have more restricted types for who you are attracted to in one or all genders and I have it in all of them. The types of women I am attracted to are rare in the church. Add in that some surveys show that approximately 60% of straight women in the general US population won’t date a bisexual guy and that number gets higher in the church. Much higher. I think I would have a better chance with a porn or drug addiction to be honest. I could theoretically try to hide it but anyone I formed a long-term relationship would almost certainly find out unless I ended a significant percentage of my social life and cut a bunch of friends off who know. Plus it would be unfair to her. I’d feel betrayed if a partner hid something like that from me. So I disclose early. It doesn’t go well. Disclosure also often means that word gets around and I get treated differently in church circles. i almost accidentally outed myself a few weeks ago when another single adult guy started spewing misogyny explaining how society doesn’t create ideal women for guys like him anymore. He started talking about wishing he was gay because he would have it easier with other guys who understand (he wouldn’t, he is gross). And I don’t know if the desire for multiple partners will shoot up again if I get with someone. It might. Outside of the church my chances shoot up a lot but I am not there yet. Maybe in another year or two. Find some poly partners or something. I don’t know. I don’t see a good road. 1
MustardSeed Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 35 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I can’t get rid of my attraction to men or weaken it. I have to control it a lot in some environments. I probably could be happy with one partner. I am not sure. My wild and crazy young adulthood doesn’t support that hypothesis (I was pretty poly in that era) but I have changed so it might work. I realistically don’t expect to find a woman in the church to marry. It is common in bisexuals to have more restricted types for who you are attracted to in one or all genders and I have it in all of them. The types of women I am attracted to are rare in the church. Add in that some surveys show that approximately 60% of straight women in the general US population won’t date a bisexual guy and that number gets higher in the church. Much higher. I think I would have a better chance with a porn or drug addiction to be honest. I could theoretically try to hide it but anyone I formed a long-term relationship would almost certainly find out unless I ended a significant percentage of my social life and cut a bunch of friends off who know. Plus it would be unfair to her. I’d feel betrayed if a partner hid something like that from me. So I disclose early. It doesn’t go well. Disclosure also often means that word gets around and I get treated differently in church circles. i almost accidentally outed myself a few weeks ago when another single adult guy started spewing misogyny explaining how society doesn’t create ideal women for guys like him anymore. He started talking about wishing he was gay because he would have it easier with other guys who understand (he wouldn’t, he is gross). And I don’t know if the desire for multiple partners will shoot up again if I get with someone. It might. Outside of the church my chances shoot up a lot but I am not there yet. Maybe in another year or two. Find some poly partners or something. I don’t know. I don’t see a good road. Interesting. When you mentioned that trying to focus on putting all your focus on women was a failure, I wondered if it would also be a failure to put all your focus on men in light of the fact that you are bisexual. My son is with a pansexual. I wondered if he was with somebody who was not capable of monogamy because literally every gender and sexual orientation would be attractive. But I have since learned that of course, anybody can be monogamous, especially when they wholeheartedly drawn to their partner. But when you mentioned your difficulty, I questioned that again? I guess in reality, it really doesn’t matter, it’s not my business (my sons choice) - actually I prefer it that way lol separate issue, I follow a therapist on social media, who explains that there are many cis gendered, heterosexual men who choose to have homosexual experiences. This is considered more of a fetish I suppose? Perhaps the illicit secrecy around it, and the tabooness Is the draw. There is so much that I do not know, and do not understand. The older I get… Edited April 2 by MustardSeed 2
Calm Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: do you get paid or otherwise compensated to post here as some outreach program of the Church, FAIR, or some subsidiary or similarly-related endeavors? If I don’t get paid by FAIR, he sure doesn’t. His posts do not align with the approved FAIR style and approach, imo, btw on certain topics like this one. And while there may be some FAIR volunteers who share his opinions on this subject, there are more in my experience who don’t. There have been a few well known FAIR volunteers more in line with his approaches, but they have moved on to other venues more in agreement with their politics or whatever. Edited April 2 by Calm 2
Peacefully Posted April 2 Posted April 2 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I actually tried that at one point. Both the praying and fixating on one half of my attraction to weaken the other. Clearly the problem is that I gave up just because it wasn’t working and was doing a number on my mental and emotional health. Should have sacrificed that health and kept going! 😜 Slacker, 🤪 Seriously, kudos for making your mental and emotional health a priority.
Calm Posted April 2 Posted April 2 (edited) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: am currently trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." Do you see the shifting as a choice though? Can someone make it happen on cue so to speak? Quote But is that purely a matter of "(non)-choice"? Or can this "change in response to situational, interpersonal, and societal factors" (which, I think, would include both volitional and non-volitional responses)? Do you have any evidence the person can push their current position to a different one when or how they want? Edited April 2 by Calm
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now