Sexuality

Anak · 2015-12-20 23:10:27

Crastopher wrote:

im just gonna go thru a little list because for gods sakes its almost 2016 this "gay/straight" and "male/female" stuff shouldnt still apparently be this hard to get

Crastopher wrote:

why do you act like all gay people physically cannot have children without the help of science? sexuality is your preference towards what's in people's pants! its not a biological limiation!

I love you

Pyromaniac wrote:

Has anyone on this thread read Middlesex? I cannot emphasize how little I want to get involved in this debate, but its a really good book on how society views gender and sexuality. I would suggest 10/10

Who by? There are also a couple other books which looked really good but I haven't read them nor do I remember the names

Crastopher · 2015-12-20 23:33:12

hummerz5 wrote:

knocking a girl up: ah yes, then there's a question for a lesbian: is that action considered rape (then we go into the abortion debate)
gay babies: good point. The (sociological?) way that homosexuality would take hold isn't through offspring. At the same time, I'm not assuming that's the cause; only that somehow it happens.
torturous parents: Whatever causes parents to be torturous is not limited only to heterosexual couples, so your argument ... no.
still going back to my last post. I get it, my view was shortsighted. I still retain it for the simple logic, but it's not realistic.

first off before i delve into anything "knocking someone up" means impregnating them and its COMPLETELY irrelevant to consent. i hadnt said anything about this impossible scenario that someone didnt consent to anything and that i molested someone! thats called a strawman argument friendo!

the "torturous parents" thing was referenced in the context of anti-homosexuality views, which is kinda why i related the two in the same sentence! im kinda just a lil certain that gay parents are gonna be less likely to attack their kids for being gay than straight parents are! you really seem to like taking my arguments out of context and adding irrelevant points completely unrelated to what im saying, dont'cha bud?

"I still retain it for the simple logic, but it's not realistic." wow!! really? what kind of view is this? "i understand the taliban murder people daily, but i still support them for their simple beliefs in god."
like youre literally saying "I know it's completely unrealistic and will never happen, but I think being gay shouldn't be allowed because what if one day all the straight people in the world disappeared and all the gay people decided they didn't care enough to reproduce with each other for some reason? Then humans would go extinct!"

god i hate everything about this little scenario down to the dot. like even excluding and ignoring every single logical point and reason and logical statement im not even that ruptured that much at all by the idea of humans going extinct. for gods sakes, if anything that means that we wouldnt be polluting everything and causing global warming and chopping down forests and creating OTHER creatures' extinctions. i mean its not like we've done much good for the world and the environment.

ANYWAYS on another subject no i havent pyromaniac! ill definitely go check it out now.

EDIT: i never even noticed u talked about abortion. h?? how??? do you think thats literally relevant enough to the actual subject we're debating about that you decided to use it as a counter-argument against me? i literally havent talked about consent and abortion at all!! and even if it was relevant why do you think i'd get into a debate about abortion?? this topic is titled "Sexuality", not "Abortion". so no, we DON'T then go into the abortion debate, because it's completely off-topic and irrelevant.

EDIT 2: thank u anak so much i love u too

Erquerliet · 2015-12-21 00:03:38

Being LGBT is definitely not normal, however it doesn't make you any worse than straight people...
Why do I think it's not normal? Because I believe that one of the prime purposes of our lives is to reproduce, and being gay or lesbian won't help in fulfilling this goal.
As I said, it doesn't make you any worse though.

You can't (at least, not now) do anything to prevent LGBT people from being... themselves. That's why I don't really care what sexuality you are. (however trans people are pretty freaky if you asked me xD)

hummerz5 · 2015-12-21 00:23:27

"knocking someone up": Indeed, that's impregnating them. The reason I branch out and suggest asking a lesbian in this case is because my argument assumes they would not consent, and you assume they would. If they did not, you wouldn't be allowed to use that as a practice on the grand scale. If they did, then that's a point to you! You emphasize that "sexuality is your preference towards what's in people's pants! its not a biological limiation!" In this scenario, you also mention that people would not go extinct. They wouldn't like what they'd have to do, possibly, but they wouldn't die off. That suggests a society-imposed requirement. Therefore, would you deny abortion to this lesbian, then?

"torturous parents": alright, a misunderstanding then. You didn't fully qualify the "abusive/murderous/torturous" was in relation to parents' actions in response to their homosexual offspring. I figured you referred to the mentally screwed up folk who abuse/murder/torture their children. Now that you've reworded your point, I agree. There's no reason for a homosexual couple to persecute their child for sharing their beliefs. You could even argue (even though you haven't, don't worry, I wouldn't dare assume you had!) that they would be understanding if their child was heterosexual after all. Granted, there would still be some fringe exceptions where the couple wouldn't be understanding, but I don't claim that to be the norm at any rate.

"taking my arguments out of context": I feel that this comment can be attributed purely to my misunderstanding. Please don't assume that I'm ignoring your points, and I'll do my best to do the same for your argument likewise.

"strawman": It seems we both enjoy blowing each others arguments out of proportion. Similarly to the above point, I'll try to cut down if you do the same!

"still retain": Yes, I do. I'm speaking purely biologically without society, human ingenuity, and all that. (taliban: see "strawman" above). I'll level right quick: I don't have a stance on this issue. I'm not against all this. Honestly, I may find it off-putting. But I'm not out here advocating anti-sexual-rights legislation. I'm mainly here to get a taste of all these arguments. Honestly, this one isn't much to go with. The only reason I'm sticking with this is because everyone is taking and applying it whereas I am speaking in generalities. Earlier I agreed that your applications of reality are correct.

"god I hate everything": quote: "you really seem to like taking my arguments out of context and adding irrelevant points completely unrelated to what im saying, dont'cha bud?" (end quote) Sorry, felt like quoting you on this one. The fact that humans destroy the environment don't really change this.

"EDIT (1)": see "knocking someone up" above for clarification. Yes, abortion probably is a bit too far out of the scope for this conversation which may extend indefinitely. But it is not altogether unrelated.

My original, ultimate point is simply that strict adherence to homosexuality without science, without society, without magic as aides, does not create children. Therefore, homosexuals, if reaching a majority point in worldwide demographics, would have to take extra steps to keep from ending civilization, etc.

gkaby · 2015-12-21 02:43:48

Pingohits wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Pingohits wrote:
XxAtillaxX wrote:
Pingohits wrote:
i already said, i don't like the "+"
unless there is something that actually makes sense in that area i will reconsider
Asexual.
i'm pretty sure that's sexual orientation, similar to sapiosexuality
so are the L, G, and B.
aw bimps i trapped myself in a corner like i always do
so here is my opinion:
LGBT is totally fine with me
stuff like genderfluid, trisexual, starsexual whatever, that's all complete trash
i mean, you can keep on making up a bunch of crazy far-fetched "genders", but you have to realize that they do not make sense
at all
not to me anyway
and then we have those pronouns that sound like trash
then we have those people who think gender is an opinion
like how babies have no gender until they say what they feel like i mean what exactly are they trying to do here

why does it matter what people consider genders - idk how it would affect anyone else

Crastopher · 2015-12-21 03:28:26

hummerz5 wrote:

and you assume they would.

i never... assumed they would. because i never suggested anything about molestation/abortion in the first place. and even in a scenario like that, you dont just deny abortion. i mean its not like theres such a small population of gay people that literally every single person wouldn't consent to having a child/children. and if you REALLY wanted to ACTUALLY assess some impossible imaginary scenario that you keep defending, if you have access to technology for abortion youre most likely going to have access to technology for gene mod/same-sex biological parents.

hummerz5 wrote:

It seems we both enjoy blowing each others arguments out of proportion.

thanks for sourcing your statements!

hummerz5 wrote:

(taliban: see "strawman" above)

i wasnt... i wasnt saying that your beliefs are absolutely horrible or anything by comparing them to the taliban. i was proving the point that its useless to hold on to an opinion if you know its not even realistic. i could have used a bunch of other examples because the taliban in general is kind of extreme, but that wasnt really the focus of the analogy. again, it was because why would you "retain" a perspective if you know its not realistic

hummerz5 wrote:

My original, ultimate point is simply that strict adherence to homosexuality without science, without society, without magic as aides, does not create children. Therefore, homosexuals, if reaching a majority point in worldwide demographics, would have to take extra steps to keep from ending civilization, etc.

that... you cant just do that. like you cant just ignore other factors. they exist whether you pretend they dont or not. you cant just go "well being gay isnt natural because WHAT IF: you DIDNT have any society, gene modification, OR science? and THEN, WHAT IF: gays TOOK OVER the population?? then it would be SLIGHTLY HARDER to reproduce. thats why gay isnt natural.

like generalizing is literally like not a good argument stance at all. just because in general "if two men or if two women have sex they can't biologically have a baby" doesn't mean you can ignore literally other aspect of homosexuality: adoption, orphanages, gene modification, etc.

and why do you keep up bringing this dumb, fake circumstance where gays outpopulate straights? you realize that the percentage of gay people in the world has stayed consistent forever, right? you're just hearing more about gay people and seeing more things about homosexuality because its becoming more and more accepted in society. up until the 1970's, homosexuality was considered a behavior. something that overcame you, then went away later. society refused to acknowledge it as a real thing that happens forever in people no matter what. like if it was 1965 and i could go to jail for saying i was gay, and some random dude knocked on my door and asked if i was gay, why in hell would i tell him yes? its called incorrect information. its called outside factors. these are literally basics in sociology. dont ignore them.

i really dont care if "it'll make gay people uncomfortable to have children so they might maybe wipe out the human race if they somehow outpopulate straights" which again, will NEVER happen. there are more gay people in your daily life because gay people can be less afraid of coming out now.

really you cant just "retain" a viewpoint because you dont want to acknowledge its reality and you just want to generalize it. generalization isnt a proper form of debate for a reason. so if you're just gonna use it debating with me theres not really a point in me wasting my time.

-

gkaby wrote:

why does it matter what people consider genders - idk how it would affect anyone else

honestly! why do all of you care? it doesnt affect your lives negatively. stop being intolerant over things that dont even hurt you. youre acting like whiney children.

Slushie · 2015-12-22 02:07:56

Idk if this is relevant to the preceding walls of text because tl;dr but

Can we just admit the concept of "gender" is dumb, and it's impossible to categorize human personalities in any meaningful way?

hummerz5 · 2015-12-22 02:18:40

Crastopher wrote:

really you cant just "retain" a viewpoint because you dont want to acknowledge its reality and you just want to generalize it. generalization isnt a proper form of debate for a reason. so if you're just gonna use it debating with me theres not really a point in me wasting my time.

Here's how I see it: you're defending this because you think I'm attacking the idea, homosexuality shouldn't be a thing, yadda yadda.
Either
A) You genuinely think that someone disagreeing with you is unacceptable or
B) you're just trolling me
In either circumstance, we may as well drop it. I'm speaking generally. Still.
Our attempts to parallelize and compare the situation is leading to large amounts of text and irrelevant squabbles because we are incapable of carrying a proper argument: one without so much emotion that it reaches this scale.

My closing remark, as it stands:
I'm not particularly for or against this topic. I may question whether or not the APA was incorrect by deciding homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. That's my prerogative. (I don't, actually, but I know that'll push your buttons)
I realize it's your right to do whatever related to this topic. Just as society divides into groups based on culture, I have the right to indirectly avoid the idea.

I saw this argument (which started from nothing) as a squabble over fact. Sorry we couldn't agree!

Pyromaniac · 2015-12-22 03:22:02

Anak wrote:

Who by? There are also a couple other books which looked really good but I haven't read them nor do I remember the names

Jeffrey Eugenides. Its about a girl that discovers she was actually born a boy, and it like explores all the ramifications of her having to choose what she identifies as (a girl, something she lived as for 18 years or a boy, what she biologically is) and how that changes everything. It was surprisingly great.

shadowda · 2015-12-22 03:28:43

is homosexuality a mental disorder.

Now I'm no expert. I assume none of us are. but i digress.

If we are using the idea that love and "sexual desire" are nothing more than chemical processes in the body to encourage the continuation of the species.
then yes. homosexuality would be a disorder.

But humans are more complicated than that. unlike many animals we are consciously aware. we are capable of going against our own judgment and even what would naturally be deemed correct. That is to say. we a capable off loving people for who they are. but that would imply homosexuals are choosing this path against their natural programming.

Because of the fact other animals have been shown to have homosexuality. it is most logical that homosexuality is merely a natural deviant from "the path". Though humans like to categorize things, to put them in boxes. sexuality among many other things is a spectrum. with the main percent in the middle being hetero and lesser percents falling across said spectrum.

Edit: when i said natural deviation. that is not to say its bad or anything. that is to say homosexuality is a natural part of a group.

hummerz5

Slushie · 2015-12-22 04:18:08

shadowda wrote:

is homosexuality a mental disorder.
Now I'm no expert. I assume none of us are. but i digress.
If we are using the idea that love and "sexual desire" are nothing more than chemical processes in the body to encourage the continuation of the species.
then yes. homosexuality would be a disorder.
But humans are more complicated than that. unlike many animals we are consciously aware. we are capable of going against our own judgment and even what would naturally be deemed correct. That is to say. we a capable off loving people for who they are. but that would imply homosexuals are choosing this path against their natural programming.
Because of the fact other animals have been shown to have homosexuality. it is most logical that homosexuality is merely a natural deviant from "the path". Though humans like to categorize things, to put them in boxes. sexuality among many other things is a spectrum. with the main percent in the middle being hetero and lesser percents falling across said spectrum.

For the sake of this argument, sure, let's assume sexuality is genetic.

If homosexuality "goes against our nature", then why is it so commonly exhibited in nature, like you said? If it was true that homosexuality impeded the survival and/or reproduction rate of a species, it would have been weeded out by natural selection long ago. But it wasn't. It's actually shown to be prevalent not only among humans, but among hundreds of other species whose common ancestor with humans dates back tens of millions of years.

It's true that a homosexual organism cannot directly contribute to the growth of its species through reproduction. However, since homosexuality is so common, we have to consider the possibility that there could be benefits to it that outweigh the drawbacks. That would explain why it was selected for by nature in the grand scheme of things. One theory I have is that intimate same-sex relations in a community increase the probability of survival, since individual members are more likely to protect and ensure the wellness of one another, regardless of sex. That community, compared to its non-homosexual counterpart, is more likely to survive and flourish in the long run.

So yes, it is certainly likely that non-heterosexual attraction among organisms is part of their "natural programming". Not a deviation, not a disorder, but what nature chose.

shadowda

JadElClemens · 2015-12-22 05:48:25

Homosexual individuals in certain animal cultures are beneficial to the species as a whole for some reason or another dealing with caring for abandoned children or something like that.
I'm not really involved enough in this debate to look up a source for that but I know I read it somewhere. You're welcome to source it if you want.

Point being, I don't think homosexuality is purely "against the natural order" or whatever because it's not like it's not beneficial in any way.

Tako · 2015-12-25 10:04:08

shadowda wrote:

is homosexuality a mental disorder.

The definition of "mental disorder" is still changing as we further understand the human psyche, so this question doesn't really have an answer.

While you might be inclined to compare homosexuality to some other disorder such as OCD, schizophrenia, or depression, you simply cannot do so. Just as the word "disease" is defined in many different ways, so are mental disorders.

Some mental disorders are defined by the amount of suffering it causes the individual. In this regard, homosexuality is not a disorder, because people are what cause the suffering, not homosexuality.

Others are defined by statistical deviation. In this regard, homosexuality is a disorder, since the vast majority of people are not homosexual.

Etiology? Not a disorder.

Syndromal pattern? Mostly a disorder.

Irrationality? Not a disorder.

Inflexibility? Disorder.

Disadvantage? Not a disorder.

Each medical practitioner places a certain amount of emphasis on each of these criterion, with the consistency of wind direction in Nebraska.

Even so, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and The American Academy of Pediatrics have nearly unanimously agreed that homosexuality is not a disorder. If you're super curious you could read their reports. I'm not going to because I don't really care for labels, in my favor or not. All they do is manipulate the truth by simplifying it.

Terrasher · 2015-12-27 01:15:24

Homosexual - Idc
Bisexual - Idc
Transexual - I'm against the procedure to change sex because it's as unnatural as you can get. If they haven't had surgery or anything, idc.
The rest - Idc, as long as there ain't weird cutting and sewing.

Schlog, AmdS

gkaby · 2015-12-27 01:50:53

Terrasher wrote:

Homosexual - Idc
Bisexual - Idc
Transexual - I'm against the procedure to change sex because it's as unnatural as you can get. If they haven't had surgery or anything, idc.
The rest - Idc, as long as there ain't weird cutting and sewing.

why do you care about the surgeries?

Terrasher · 2015-12-27 06:12:10

gkaby wrote:

Terrasher wrote:
Homosexual - Idc
Bisexual - Idc
Transexual - I'm against the procedure to change ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) because it's as unnatural as you can get. If they haven't had surgery or anything, idc.
The rest - Idc, as long as there ain't weird cutting and sewing.
why do you care about the surgeries?

I find them to be insanely unnatural. Sure, it may make the person having the surgery happier, but I'll still feel distant / uneasy due to the fact that there had to be some sort of elaborate and extremely unnatural intervention to achieve the person's goal. Homosexuals and bisexuals don't need surgeons to change their bodies and be "how they are supposed to be". I am also against the whole thing where transexuals inject themselves with testosterone or estrogen, for the same reason I feel uneasy towards the surgery.

gkaby · 2015-12-27 06:19:09

Terrasher wrote:

gkaby wrote:
Terrasher wrote:
Homosexual - Idc
Bisexual - Idc
Transexual - I'm against the procedure to change ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) because it's as unnatural as you can get. If they haven't had surgery or anything, idc.
The rest - Idc, as long as there ain't weird cutting and sewing.
why do you care about the surgeries?
I find them to be insanely unnatural. Sure, it may make the person having the surgery happier, but I'll still feel distant / uneasy due to the fact that there had to be some sort of elaborate and extremely unnatural intervention to achieve the person's goal. Homosexuals and bisexuals don't need surgeons to change their bodies and be "how they are supposed to be". I am also against the whole thing where transexuals inject themselves with testosterone or estrogen, for the same reason I feel uneasy towards the surgery.

how is it unnatural? what do you consider to be unnatural?

and why does something being considering what you consider to be unnatural mean that it is wrong?

edit: why do you care about it? it isnt affecting you as far as i know

you say that it may make the person happier, but that you feel uneasy about it because it is elaborate and "unnatural."
you say that you feel uneasy about transsexuals injecting themselves with testosterone or estrogen.
are you against the injecting with testosterone or estrogen because it also makes them change?

Awesomenessgood · 2015-12-27 15:38:50

I identify as Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT). At some points I feel like I don't have enough current flowing through my base. That's why I feel lethargic at times. As you all know there are two types of BJTs: NPN and PNP. I identify as NPN. Mind my pronouns. Here's a symbol of an NPN BJT:

I hope everyone understands and respect my choice of being a transistor.

Pingohits

Slushie · 2015-12-27 20:56:01

I don't really understand the thought process of transsexuals. Can someone explain it to me? I'm just curious.

The way I see it, there's no reason to change your sex based on your personality or gender. There's nothing wrong with being a boy with a "feminine" personality or a girl with a "masculine" personality. The entire concept of transsexuality seems to be contradicting that. It's telling people that if your gender doesn't match your sex, you should get a sex change because you'll never be comfortable in your body otherwise.

I don't even know why transpeople are grouped in with gay or bisexual people in the term "LGBT". It's not a sexuality.

DULL

shadowda · 2015-12-27 22:59:43

Slushie wrote:

I don't really understand the thought process of transsexuals. Can someone explain it to me? I'm just curious.
The way I see it, there's no reason to change your sex based on your personality or gender. There's nothing wrong with being a boy with a "feminine" personality or a girl with a "masculine" personality. The entire concept of transsexuality seems to be contradicting that. It's telling people that if your gender doesn't match your se'x, you should get a se'x change because you'll never be comfortable in your body otherwise.
I don't even know why transpeople are grouped in with gay or bisexual people in the term "LGBT". It's not a sexuality.

first of transgender is not a sexuality. its a gender. so your right.

and transsexual refers to those who have actually changed their physical sex.

I've questioned the reasoning my self. and i completely agree with you.

its the world we live in. its because someone born male "shouldn't" play with dolls or wear a dress. but on top of that is something mental that someone just doesn't like their own body.

wiki wrote:

gen·der dys·pho·ri·a
noun
the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.

▼Hidden text

Anak · 2015-12-27 23:34:46

Some of my friends are transgender and I suppose that's a question I've never asked or had answered. I suppose when they say they are "the wrong gender" so to speak they would mean the wrong sex.
That's an interesting question which I don't have the answer to myself.

DULL · 2015-12-27 23:38:20

I'm fine with anyone.

I personally think sexuality is generally formed by genetics, with a little influence of the environment. I can recall some memories of physical attractiveness to males, way back before I even knew I was homosexual. I was aware that a range of sexualities exists back then, but I had no idea I was not straight. As much as I can express it with words, I guess that makes my primary point — not really scientifically based, but observed. Now regarding the environment, I believe it has little influence as I was grown in a non-gay-friendly setting, was upbrought to correspond with male gender roles and all that stuff, and still it didn't work out.

Transgenderism (is that a noun?) is not very comprehensible to me; transsexuality is even harder, but I'm fine with both as well. Genderqueer stuff is something I completely do not and cannot understand — I would like to know what is something between male and female gender. I just don't get it.

Regarding all those labels like demi-/omni-/grey- etc. -sexual/-romantic, I think they're mostly useless. No need in them, imo.

If anything sounds harsh, just know I didn't mean to. That was pretty hard to write. Also, feel free to challenge my views.

AmdS

Anak · 2015-12-27 23:48:01

dull wrote:

Transgenderism (is that a noun?) is not very comprehensible to me; transsexuality is even harder, but I'm fine with both as well. Genderqueer stuff is something I completely do not and cannot understand — I would like to know what is something between male and female gender. I just don't get it.
Regarding all those labels like demi-/omni-/grey- etc. -sexual/-romantic, I think they're mostly useless. No need in them, imo.

There isn't really anything inbetween male and female I guess since they are the gender binary, although some people may feel they are half male/half female. Genderqueer is basically something outside of the binary, and well I guess that's just what people feel they are.

I suppose you could say labels aren't useful because you're trying to define yourself and you know who you like and all that, but... you may know who you like, but someone else won't know if you'll like them. (With some identities I guess you might still have to specify as it would be entirely clear)

-sexual and -romantic are useful in my opinion because they're not always the same. You might not find someone sexually attractive (so you probably won't have sex with them) but you might still be in love with them, or vice versa.
Labels and stuff are useful in helping you identify yourself, but also helping others know whether they have a shot with your or not I guess.

gkaby · 2015-12-27 23:54:22

ive always thought i was more feminine than masculine in my thoughts, and ive always been against ideas of things being for certain genders, like pink being associated with girls and blue, etc being associated with boys. i think this was the reasoning i made my favorite color green, because it could be both a color boys like and a color girls like, and its the color of the environment, like with trees and grass. i also think i just liked the color in general - though i dont think ive ever thought of wanting to change my physical self. it might just be the way i was raised that made me think of myself of being more associated with ideas associated with feminism, rather than actually being that or something idk, but in my experiences of always associated myself with feminine ideas and the lack of wanting to change my physical self would make me think that if someone wanted to change themselves that it would be more than just associations with traits of one gender over another. there is that, and the fact that if there is reason for people to change their physical self, i dont think ive experienced anything like that, so i guess you could say i dont understand that, but i dont think thats reason to not let people do what they want. idk any risks with the surgeries, but assuming people are risking their lives to change themselves because they are not happy with how they are, and the surgery will make them happy, then the unhappiness is significant enough for them to risk their life. idk. if the surgeries are not life risking then i would think it shouldnt be a worry to anyone idk
but anyway its something they want to do and its not hurting anyone else so i dont see how anyone should care

sorry for bad wording if there is anything not clear please say so ill try to elaborate on it or fix it/reword it

DULL, Zoey2070

DULL · 2015-12-28 00:13:49

Anak wrote:

dull wrote:
<snip>
There isn't really anything inbetween male and female I guess since they are the gender binary, although some people may feel they are half male/half female. Genderqueer is basically something outside of the binary, and well I guess that's just what people feel they are.
I suppose you could say labels aren't useful because you're trying to define yourself and you know who you like and all that, but... you may know who you like, but someone else won't know if you'll like them. (With some identities I guess you might still have to specify as it would be entirely clear)
-sexual and -romantic are useful in my opinion because they're not always the same. You might not find someone sexually attractive (so you probably won't have sex with them) but you might still be in love with them, or vice versa.
Labels and stuff are useful in helping you identify yourself, but also helping others know whether they have a shot with your or not I guess.

I guess the third gender is as unimaginable to me as me controlling three arms or seeing invisible spectrum. Eh, I wish I could understand that.

-sexual/-romantic are useful, I meant the first roots, demi/omni/grey etc. To my view, they either mean something that is pointless or something that another wider term already implies. I can't speak for everything, but for the most of it, I guess.

This is such a blurry topic it's pretty easy to get lost in thoughts.

gkaby wrote:

<snip>

That was a nice piece of text. I agree with the idea that not understanding something is not a reason to forbid it.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#76 2015-12-20 23:10:27, last edited by Anak (2015-12-20 23:12:01)

Re: Sexuality

#77 2015-12-20 23:33:12, last edited by Crastopher (2015-12-20 23:42:17)

Re: Sexuality

#78 2015-12-21 00:03:38

Re: Sexuality

#79 2015-12-21 00:23:27

Re: Sexuality

#80 2015-12-21 02:43:48

Re: Sexuality

#81 2015-12-21 03:28:26

Re: Sexuality

#82 2015-12-22 02:07:56

Re: Sexuality

#83 2015-12-22 02:18:40

Re: Sexuality

#84 2015-12-22 03:22:02

Re: Sexuality

#85 2015-12-22 03:28:43, last edited by shadowda (2015-12-22 20:51:34)

Re: Sexuality

#86 2015-12-22 04:18:08

Re: Sexuality

#87 2015-12-22 05:48:25

Re: Sexuality

#88 2015-12-25 10:04:08

Re: Sexuality

#89 2015-12-27 01:15:24

Re: Sexuality

#90 2015-12-27 01:50:53

Re: Sexuality

#91 2015-12-27 06:12:10

Re: Sexuality

#92 2015-12-27 06:19:09, last edited by gkaby (2015-12-27 06:23:50)

Re: Sexuality

#93 2015-12-27 15:38:50

Re: Sexuality

#94 2015-12-27 20:56:01, last edited by Slushie (2015-12-28 02:17:50)

Re: Sexuality

#95 2015-12-27 22:59:43

Re: Sexuality

#96 2015-12-27 23:34:46, last edited by Anak (2015-12-27 23:35:19)

Re: Sexuality

#97 2015-12-27 23:38:20

Re: Sexuality

#98 2015-12-27 23:48:01

Re: Sexuality

#99 2015-12-27 23:54:22

Re: Sexuality

#100 2015-12-28 00:13:49, last edited by DULL (2015-12-28 00:31:53)

Re: Sexuality

Board footer