Integration

I had an interesting disagreement with a friend of mine recently.  He stated, “Men cannot be bisexual.”  I highly disagreed.  His girlfriend said, “You can’t win this argument, he [meaning me] IS bisexual.”  We went on to dive into the details of semantic argument after semantic argument (I hate repeating myself) but we arrived at no real conclusion.  A day later, he explains to me, “that man is bisexual.”  Referring to a famous singer, who will remain unnamed, he tells me that he is definitely bisexual but prefers men.  I stop him, saying, “You said you didn’t believe that men could be bisexual.”  He politely replies, “Yes, I said ‘Men cannot be bisexual.’ But this MAN can be.”

Shock and intense thought runs through me.  Can I be wrong?  No, actually, we are both right.  He said “Men” meaning ‘many male people.’  I thought he meant “All males,” meaning ‘every male person.’  A subtle differential separated us from understanding the real meaning of our statements.  I thought he meant the Male type.  He was thinking about the majority of the Male type.  This is a simple distinction between absolute and relative.  He was thinking that “Men” meant relatively ALL men, while I was thinking he was speaking about the absolute “Male” perspective.

Both of us were horrified.  We were thinking the same thing, we both realized at the same time, that MALES do not identify with a particular sexuality, but rather “Males,” who are the general populous of males, DO identify with a straight sexuality.  Of course they do, say I, who is surprised that he didn’t understand me in the first place.  I think the majority of males clearly identify themselves as “straight” at first.  Then a few males will identify themselves as either gay or straight.  BUT THEN, a few of those gay guys identify themselves as bisexual, which is what I have been saying all-along.

The problem was semantic.  I meant “men” as did my friend mean “men.”  But we meant different PERSPECTIVES of the objective term “men.”  I meant the general perspective of “all males” while he referred to the perspective of “most men.”  Both were right, but they were from different perspectives.  This is the core problem with humanity today (at least it is the core problem I am willing to blog about)….  Please, read on.  This will all make perfect sense in a moment.

We live in a semi-rational world that is bursting at the seams with non-rationality.  Furthermore, we live in a “Both/And” world of multiple perspectives that do not always see eye-to-eye.  Nevertheless, a majority of humanity believe in an eye-for-an-eye.  That is, one is sentenced to a punishment equal to one's crime.  However, those diverging perspectives can and will be integrated whereas those who rely on a simplistic binary method of decision making leave only an “either/or” distinction that polarizes their audiences, minds, and even their projections of the World.  If one is forced upon that typical (and I mean TYPE-ical) decision, one is forced toward a blind AND ignorant solution that does not integrate both AND the other.

What does this have to do with sexuality?  Everything AND nothing.  Don't you get it?  That was just an example.  But it is a fun one :-)

Integrate, please.  At least for the sake of everyone else.