I am so glad to see your post!

I am not really sure if those girls were even telling the truth or just looking for the reaction they could get. I do agree with you that it shows a variey of sexuality more than a fluidity of sexuality. That is a much better way of saying it than I did – thanks.

Its probably unimportant at this time, but I don’t agree that what those women were saying on the show speaks to a fluidity of sexuality – I think it DOES show a variety of sexuality though – but these two are not the same things.

Its probably unimportant at this time, but I don’t agree that what those women were saying on the show says a fluidity of sexuality – I think it DOES show a variety of sexuality though – but these two are not the same things.

I’m betting, though, that you and I agree on more things than we disagree 🙂

Out of 98 people very determined to experience “change”, only 11 were able to report “reduced homosexual desire and increased heterosexual functioning”. Those who are now straight (as your next-door neighbor understands the term): zero.

So whatever it is that “fluidity” and “change” mean, they certainly don’t mean reorientation.

Just a thought.

Like all great records, once broken, you can’t seem to stem the tide of record-breakers. A look at the Top Commenters will reveal that Mary will likely take over the number one spot from Timothy within the next day or two. And Jayhuck is on her heels. (2100+ comments when you combine the three!) Yes, Timothy could fall into the number 3 spot by the weekend!

I’ll admit that it does depend on ‘what you mean by ‘great’ …and ‘broken ‘…and whether two people could be called ‘a tide’. We all have different definitions for those words. Not to mention ‘records’ and ‘record breakers’…I got a new turntable just last night but I’m pretty sure I mean the other kind of records. And, as for record breakers, I’m not referring to those Christians groups who break and burn records they feel are satanic. (And, I double-checked…I’m saying Jayhuck is ON Mary’s heels not IN them.)

I prefaced my comments about the Miami Ink program with an “as a side note”. I ended it by saying “Just another example of how individual we all are, that sexuality can be fluid for some people, and, how that can sometimes differ from the convential wisdom.” I do not think I confused bi-sexuality with anything because I never used that term and neither did the couple on the show – rather than using labels or terms, they chose to describe their relationship and what that meant to them. Gay, ex-gay, bi-sexuality, were never mentioned and I respect them for that. I found it interesting and thought it was another example of how unique some people can be their sexual fluidity, even though it does not follow the convential wisdom of “putting people into catagories”.

I understand what you are saying with that Miami Ink example, but that is not about sexuality being fluid. When we talk about sexuality existing on a continuum, that really isn’t about it being fluid. Those girls on Miami Ink were obviously very bisexual, not gay – which is fine (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but we have to be careful not just to understand that sexuality exists along a continuum, but also not to confuse true bisexuality with people who are more heterosexual or homosexual.

Jag,

Yes, this is very important to always remember in any kind of message or communication. No one should give the message that everyone can change, and just as important, that no one can change. The word “change” can mean different things to different people and that, in itself, should be respected. It is assuming and arrogant for anyone to put themselves in a superior role and think they have the ability and power to determine, through words and assumptions, the direction of another’s life.