|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 3, 2016 11:26:03 GMT -5
It's nice that LEGO-Americans now have their own specialized bathhouses and clinics. They've earned that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 3, 2016 15:32:18 GMT -5
I am horrifyingly confused... Outside of previously mentioned medical necessity, where sex is NOT ambiguous except in extreme cases, I have never seen "Men who have sex with other men." Could you please cite an example beyond the medical spectrum where this term is applied? Blood donation forms. So people can't wrangle out of the completely unfair ban by merely having "experimented in college" Blood donations would fall under the "medical terminology" umbrella. I'm asking for examples of it being a social identity, rather than a medically necessary documentation of a behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 4, 2016 4:41:33 GMT -5
Blood donation forms. So people can't wrangle out of the completely unfair ban by merely having "experimented in college" Blood donations would fall under the "medical terminology" umbrella. I'm asking for examples of it being a social identity, rather than a medically necessary documentation of a behavior. They don't use the actual words "men who have sex with other men", but those young dudes who "experimented in college" are exactly the type of people this term describes. See also dudes in prison and some gay porn stars. People who engage in same gender sexual activity but would never consider themselves part of the LGBT community. Like if two dudes banged each other under the pretense of "it's not gay if there's no eye contact". |
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Jan 4, 2016 7:06:53 GMT -5
I would assume by their name. Even if they are, forgive me if i use the wrong term, trans.
Then again a am just a boring ole straight guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 5, 2016 21:56:19 GMT -5
Blood donations would fall under the "medical terminology" umbrella. I'm asking for examples of it being a social identity, rather than a medically necessary documentation of a behavior. They don't use the actual words "men who have sex with other men", but those young dudes who "experimented in college" are exactly the type of people this term describes. See also dudes in prison and some gay porn stars. People who engage in same gender sexual activity but would never consider themselves part of the LGBT community. Like if two dudes banged each other under the pretense of "it's not gay if there's no eye contact". Interesting. I guess I've never had any actual experience with people who willingly identify as such. If they're unwilling to engender themselves in the LGBT community, it seems they'd be unlikely to come forth openly about their sexual history with members of the same sex. Again, this seems to be something that would ONLY come up when presented with the question of "Have you ever, for any reason, engaged in sexual activity with someone of the same sex?" Let me be clear...I'm not misunderstanding what the term is. I'm misunderstanding where it would EVER, FOR ANY REASON, be used outside the medical community, because this describes a BEHAVIOR, not an IDENTITY. "I'm straight, but I've banged dudes," is an identity crisis one needs to sort out with themselves if necessary. What I'm driving at is that a social identity and a behavior are not always analogous. I sometimes vote (insert party here) but I identify (insert party here). Necessity for understanding what one person did with their genitals isn't completely linked to how they choose to define themselves. If a porn star who engages in sex with both men and women doesn't wish to identify as bisexual, that's a self/social identity, while the behavior is still considered explicitly sex-with-opposite-sex-partners or sex-with-same-sex-partners. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but "men who have sex with other men" doesn't strike me as a psycho-social identity. It is nothing more than an explicit description of behavior necessary in a medical setting. The psycho-social identity is self-created, whereas the behavior is empirically decided. Does this make sense? So...I'm asking for real wold examples of when a person would SOCIALLY identify as such, rather than simply an admission of past or present behaviors. |
|
