Sexual Identity?

[Cognisant]

I have difficulty accepting "pangender" but I'm incredibly bored right now so I'm going to reconsider it, there's a conceptual loose end I want to investigate.

Is there a gay gene?
As far as I know nobody's found a genetic cause for homosexuality indeed the very notion is scandalous, if there was an identified genetic "defect" it could be checked for and "treated" prior to that person's birth, homosexuality could be "cured" within a generation.

Given that the people of the world haven't lost their collective shit over this I think it's safe to assume the gay gene hasn't been found, indeed that there is no such gay gene to be found which is a fact that also has profound implications. Because if there is no gay gene then anyone could be gay, the nature vs nurture debate is over, sexual identities are entirely arbitrary (insofar as genetics is concerned) so the notion of an inherent sexual identity is defunct.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

if there is no gay gene then anyone could be gay

But there's no INTP gene, and not just anyone can be an INTP!!

 

[kora]

Well, the thing is, first of all we can't pinpoint genetic causes with certainty yet at all, we're starting to be able to, for example, maybe kind of see an obesity gene. I mean, genetics is still very new and imprecise no ? We can identify certain illnesses because we've looked for them a lot...I doubt there's even been a research program collecting enough data on homosexuals to try and determine it...I mean, I hope I would have heard about it anyway. I know there is quite serious research looking at transsexuals (different thing yeah) and gender disphoria where they think the level of hormones one is exposed to as a fetus might have something to do with it, which isn't genetic as a cause but still counts as "nature" instead of "nurture". One could imagine something similar for homosexuality perhaps.


Second of all, do you have any gay friends ? Many of the ones I know remember wanting boyfriends/girlfriends or feeling romantically towards members of the same sex from the start, like when they were 5 and you have your first notions of romantic relationships, which is kind of weird.

I'm not saying it's only genetic
Have you read Kinsey ? D'you know the sexuality scale? He determined that only 5% of the population were completely gay or straight and that most people fell somewhere in between the two (with the majority being mostly heterosexual, i.e. Occasionally having fantasies of kissing or touching same sex members.) it's all quite fluid.

I don't see why we would want to "cure" it though, would we feel the need to cure anyone who does not want kids if we found an anti parental gene ? Overpopulation and stuff + there would be no problem if it was just integrated socially perfectly.

 

[The Gopher]

I have difficulty accepting "pangender" but I'm incredibly bored right now so I'm going to reconsider it, there's a conceptual loose end I want to investigate.

Is there a gay gene?
As far as I know nobody's found a genetic cause for homosexuality indeed the very notion is scandalous, if there was an identified genetic "defect" it could be checked for and "treated" prior to that person's birth, homosexuality could be "cured" within a generation.

Given that the people of the world haven't lost their collective shit over this I think it's safe to assume the gay gene hasn't been found, indeed that there is no such gay gene to be found which is a fact that also has profound implications. Because if there is no gay gene then anyone could be gay, the nature vs nurture debate is over, sexual identities are entirely arbitrary (insofar as genetics is concerned) so the notion of an inherent sexual identity is defunct.

To be honest I don't entirely see the connection to pangender. Then again this is the first I've heard of it so...

I don't know if there is a gay gene. As Higs said it could be due to hormone balance or upbringing and I don't particularly care either way.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by sexual identity. " In a 1990 study by the Social Organization of Sexuality, only 16% of women and 36% of men who reported some level of same-sex attraction had a homosexual or bisexual identity.[8]" If you mean it in this context what do you mean by arbitrary? If I like and ride motorcycles I might identify as a motorcyclist. If someone rides motorcycles and says they aren't a motorcyclist well... is that arbitrary? Is there a motorcycle gene? If anyone can be a motorcyclist then identifying as a motorcyclist is entirely arbitrary... Right?

Does it matter if someone is or isn't inherently a motorcyclist? I mean someone may be inherently white and may not be inherently a cook but they can identify as a white cook. (I am beginning to realise I have a problem with over using analogies)

I'm not entirely sure if your definitions are straight. (heh)

 

[Jennywocky]

the "nature vs nurture" argument is usually handled on such a black and white level, it becomes absurd. Genetics and environment can work together to make changes in an organism that can persist. Genes (and their effects) can be muted or amplified by environmental pressures. Genetics involvement doesn't mean it's immutable necessarily depending on the genes, and environmental involvement doesn't mean it can't persist. You're basically doing things to an organism and leaving impressions on it that can be cumulative.

It depends on the particular item in question, as to how "fluid" it might seem to be.

 

[Reluctantly]

It seems just as absurd to say sexual attraction is arbitrary though. I mean if so, why can't someone be attracted to donkeys or horses or your dog then? I mean there's no gene, so it must be a normal thing for some people, right? Never heard of it though.

*finds zoophile*
Oh...nvm, I guess some people do have attraction to animals.

Huh, I wonder if there's ever been any research into studying parts of the brain involved in sexual attraction. Maybe one day they could look at someone's brain and know if they are gay or something.

Funny, I just had a dream last night where I was kissing a cute guy and now we're talking about this. (I have wet dreams about men and women)

 

[Grayman]

People who call themselves pangender are likely just having trouble fitting in with any gender roles as opposed to experiencing any actual gender identity crisis. Its like they don't know that gender roles are just made up roles created by the evolution of their culture in order make them a more efficient product/producer of society. Perhaps they do and haven't figured out how to cope with it.

It would be better to tackle the issue of gender roles directly than to amuck with these weird liberal vocab words.

 

[The Gopher]

It seems just as absurd to say sexual attraction is arbitrary though. I mean if so, why can't someone be attracted to donkeys or horses or your dog then? I mean there's no gene, so it must be a normal thing for some people, right? Never heard of it though.

*finds zoophile*
Oh...nvm, I guess some people do have attraction to animals.

Oh you sweet summer child. Every object in your room probably has a fetish picture/forum for it somewhere.

 

[crippli]

There is no gene. There is only pleasure.

 

[Reluctantly]

Oh you sweet summer child. Every object in your room probably has a fetish picture/forum for it somewhere.

+

There is no gene. There is only pleasure.

[bimgx=250]http://i.imgur.com/jbMRUV7.jpg[/bimgx]

NOTHING IS SAFE

 

[crippli]

Spoiler

[bimgx=250]http://i.imgur.com/jbMRUV7.jpg[/bimgx]

NOTHING IS SAFE

Why the sad face? Do you disagree, that sexual identity is more an
emotional aspect. Like a workshop. Might have one tool to do one thing, or more to do various work. Pansexual could be to be emotionally gifted. But like intellectually giftet, I would think it rare.

Not a gene. But a combination of all genes. Their interaction.

An ability to gain pleasure at higher levels should be a skill as challenging to achieve as other skills. Does it need to be more then a skill?

A good foundation + nurture tend to help, or something else.
Can anyone learn to solve differential equations? Maybe the reasons to that is the same as to this.

What if everything is safe?

 

[kora]

 

[Reluctantly]

Why the sad face? Do you disagree, that sexual identity is more an
emotional aspect. Like a workshop. Might have one tool to do one thing, or more to do various work. Pansexual could be to be emotionally gifted. But like intellectually giftet, I would think it rare.

Not a gene. But a combination of all genes. Their interaction.

An ability to gain pleasure at higher levels should be a skill as challenging to achieve as other skills. Does it need to be more then a skill?

A good foundation + nurture tend to help, or something else.
Can anyone learn to solve differential equations? Maybe the reasons to that is the same as to this.

What if everything is safe?

LEAVE MY CAT AND DOLLS ALONE

 

[Rixus]

If i understand it correctly, pansexual is supposed to be all those who don't identify which either heterosexual, or LGBT. Some think of it as "everyone else", but obviously didn't think about that very well when they made the newer LGBTP thing as the opponent's started accusing then of supporting harmful sexual behaviour. Those who say they identify with pansexual, though, say it's that they don't care about physical traits such as gender because they've "moved beyond that." Which I always thought bisexual covered, but there you go. In mind, as long as consenting adults are happy to do whatever they want to do, I have no particular issue with it.

I know it may sound very stereotypical, but having known a number of gay people it seems like there is a string genetic influence. It probably isn't a single gene as they'd have found it by now, but a combination of genes making up a hormonal effect seems likely to me. But I think as there's a sliding scale of hetero, homosexual and various degrees of bisexuality that it must be a very complex set of hormones they influence it. By definition, this would be a hormone imbalance and therefore some sort of illness or something. But then, I would define such an illness as something that has a major negative effect on a persons life. And as i said, if they're happy I don't see why such a definition is necessary. I also find it a little weird that some people care so much about another persons sexuality as to become violent or abusive or start internet campaigns or whatever. I can't understand why it means so much to them. I just can't find any part of me that cares about a detail so nothing-to-do-with-me as their sexuality that when I meet them.

On the other hand, then, there are weird and often harmful fetishes they I think are clearly a sign of a disturbed individual and probably some deep seeded trauma behind it. But that, I think, is a different matter to sexuality.

 

[Jennywocky]

....waiting now for the potsexuals to enter the fray. ..

 

[crippli]

If i understand it correctly, pansexual is supposed to be all those who don't identify which either heterosexual, or LGBT. Some think of it as "everyone else", but obviously didn't think about that very well when they made the newer LGBTP thing as the opponent's started accusing then of supporting harmful sexual behaviour. Those who say they identify with pansexual, though, say it's that they don't care about physical traits such as gender because they've "moved beyond that." Which I always thought bisexual covered, but there you go. In mind, as long as consenting adults are happy to do whatever they want to do, I have no particular issue with it.

I use this definition.

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

I read that as focus personality. And not sex at all. But exactly how this mechanism operates when it comes to the sex I don't know. Maybe a love for the body regardless off it's appearance, based off the personality would suffice.

Hetero, homo and bi sexuality should per definition focus on the sexual characteristics on the body. I'd even say if personality mattered, then one isn't a true heterosexual.

Gosh...isn't theory fun

I know it may sound very stereotypical, but having known a number of gay people it seems like there is a string genetic influence. It probably isn't a single gene as they'd have found it by now, but a combination of genes making up a hormonal effect seems likely to me.

Is there anything that doesn't fit this description?

Sorta, can the concrete become abstract? Can my drawing of a bridge ever become a bridge. It can in my mind, but elsewhere?

But I think as there's a sliding scale of hetero, homosexual and various degrees of bisexuality that it must be a very complex set of hormones they influence it. By definition, this would be a hormone imbalance and therefore some sort of illness or something. But then, I would define such an illness as something that has a major negative effect on a persons life. And as i said, if they're happy I don't see why such a definition is necessary. I also find it a little weird that some people care so much about another persons sexuality as to become violent or abusive or start internet campaigns or whatever. I can't understand why it means so much to them. I just can't find any part of me that cares about a detail so nothing-to-do-with-me as their sexuality that when I meet them.

An illness is something that creates problems through internal work, or external work. In the 1600 century a witch was ill, because the social force would sentence the witch to death. Dying is not a good health. Illness can come through bacteria and even humans. Is there a difference?

On the other hand, then, there are weird and often harmful fetishes they I think are clearly a sign of a disturbed individual and probably some deep seeded trauma behind it. But that, I think, is a different matter to sexuality.

That's general. An example?

And like, is being disturbed good or bad? Is one disturbed by being woken up, or falling asleep, or neither or both?

As I've thought more on this, I'm quite sure the notion of inherent sexual identity is not defunct. Rather the opposite. If one believe it is inherent, it is. Isn't it?

 

[Black Rose]

Sexual Identity?

The question is: can you masturbate to it.

I never masturbate to guys but I am sure that some guys masturbate to pictures of the same sex. But I do find some guys really hot even though I am a guy, I just don't masturbate to them. I find them attractive and I think it is romantic in a platonic way. I mean that I could love another guy but I would never have sex with them. I could find them really hot but never have sex with them. I only really want to have sex with girls. And the guys I find attractive mostly are Anime characters. I am not attracted to ugly people.

 

[Rixus]

I use this definition.

I read that as focus personality. And not sex at all. But exactly how this mechanism operates when it comes to the sex I don't know. Maybe a love for the body regardless off it's appearance, based off the personality would suffice.

Hetero, homo and bi sexuality should per definition focus on the sexual characteristics on the body. I'd even say if personality mattered, then one isn't a true heterosexual.

Gosh...isn't theory fun

I don't believe that is so. I'm entirely heterosexual. I do find a well proportioned female form to the highly attractive. However, a poor personality can make someone seem ugly or unattractive to me, even if they are physically beautiful. Likewise, a woman may not be incredibly attractive, yet I can be very attracted to them if they have a good mind. I say an attractive mind, because this can mean intelligence, way of thinking and general personality. All brings up a picture of their mind. Of course, intelligence is one of the main things that I find most attractive - weirdly, besting me in an intellectual contest is very sexy. Does that make me sapiosexual or is that taking it too far and it's just an attribute I prefer?

Is there anything that doesn't fit this description?

Sorta, can the concrete become abstract? Can my drawing of a bridge ever become a bridge. It can in my mind, but elsewhere?

@I was just throwing in my point of view on the fact that the fact that no one has found a "gay gene" was mentioned up thread meaning it must be more environmental. It may seem to be common sense that a single gene is unlikely to be responsible, but people still talk about it.

An illness is something that creates problems through internal work, or external work. In the 1600 century a witch was ill, because the social force would sentence the witch to death. Dying is not a good health. Illness can come through bacteria and even humans. Is there a difference?

We know that up until the seventies, homosexuality was categorised as a paraphilia and treated as a mental disorder. Obviously, I don't agree with that, as I was trying to explain with the logic that a mental disorder has to (to me, at least) could the person suffering in life. It does not - prejudice cause suffering, but people, from what I've seen, appear to be happier with themselves once they accept their sexuality. And since no one is being harmed in any way, I can't see any problem with it.

That's general. An example?

And like, is being disturbed good or bad? Is one disturbed by being woken up, or falling asleep, or neither or both?

I was being deliberately vague as I didn't really want to get into it. But I recently saw an online stink from the homophobia community claiming that the P in LGBTP stood for Pedio-sexual, in a supposed attempt to normalise this grotesque behaviour. Obviously, it is not linked in any way, but I think it originally was meant to mean everyone else, so the idea left it open to people like that trying to make non-heterosexual sexuality linked to harmful psychological states.

There are some fetishes that seem very strange to me, but as long it falls under my broad acceptance rule of "whatever consenting adults are happy to do together", then it's up to the individuals. Sexual predators, I suppose, are then about the only thing I refer to as harmful. I guess some serious masochism could be harmful as it can cause serious physical harm and that's probably not a good thing.

Though, I do believe some of the odder fetishes that may seem harmless are possibly a sign of mental issues. An example is an old friend of mine who had a preference for women twice his age. One might consider that he was happy with such an older woman, but firstly I knew he had serious parental issues and also I could see that the relationship was unhealthy due to the dynamics of it and the way they both behaved. But this preference in itself wasn't the problem with him - the fact that his mother abandoned him to an abusive father is the issue.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am a straight man-born-man.

 

[ummidk]

I don't believe that is so. I'm entirely heterosexual. I do find a well proportioned female form to the highly attractive. However, a poor personality can make someone seem ugly or unattractive to me, even if they are physically beautiful. Likewise, a woman may not be incredibly attractive, yet I can be very attracted to them if they have a good mind. I say an attractive mind, because this can mean intelligence, way of thinking and general personality. All brings up a picture of their mind. Of course, intelligence is one of the main things that I find most attractive - weirdly, besting me in an intellectual contest is very sexy. Does that make me sapiosexual or is that taking it too far and it's just an attribute I prefer?



@I was just throwing in my point of view on the fact that the fact that no one has found a "gay gene" was mentioned up thread meaning it must be more environmental. It may seem to be common sense that a single gene is unlikely to be responsible, but people still talk about it.



We know that up until the seventies, homosexuality was categorised as a paraphilia and treated as a mental disorder. Obviously, I don't agree with that, as I was trying to explain with the logic that a mental disorder has to (to me, at least) could the person suffering in life. It does not - prejudice cause suffering, but people, from what I've seen, appear to be happier with themselves once they accept their sexuality. And since no one is being harmed in any way, I can't see any problem with it.



I was being deliberately vague as I didn't really want to get into it. But I recently saw an online stink from the homophobia community claiming that the P in LGBTP stood for Pedio-sexual, in a supposed attempt to normalise this grotesque behaviour. Obviously, it is not linked in any way, but I think it originally was meant to mean everyone else, so the idea left it open to people like that trying to make non-heterosexual sexuality linked to harmful psychological states.

There are some fetishes that seem very strange to me, but as long it falls under my broad acceptance rule of "whatever consenting adults are happy to do together", then it's up to the individuals. Sexual predators, I suppose, are then about the only thing I refer to as harmful. I guess some serious masochism could be harmful as it can cause serious physical harm and that's probably not a good thing.

Though, I do believe some of the odder fetishes that may seem harmless are possibly a sign of mental issues. An example is an old friend of mine who had a preference for women twice his age. One might consider that he was happy with such an older woman, but firstly I knew he had serious parental issues and also I could see that the relationship was unhealthy due to the dynamics of it and the way they both behaved. But this preference in itself wasn't the problem with him - the fact that his mother abandoned him to an abusive father is the issue.

That is alot of words to say "I'm a straight male but i accept currently accepted beliefs"

 

[redbaron]

Epigenetics

and that's as far as i can be bothered explaining.

oh fuck it

it's not about the genes, it's gene expression. if you look into- who am i kidding this is gonna take forever.

google it and look for a while and you'll probably find the wrong answer like me

 

[QuickTwist]

Epigenetics

and that's as far as i can be bothered explaining.

oh fuck it

it's not about the genes, it's gene expression. if you look into- who am i kidding this is gonna take forever.

google it and look for a while and you'll probably find the wrong answer like me

LOL. That's what I said.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not sure the all-inclusive Alphabet String acronym is going to improve matters. As typical, now folks who aren't covered in it don't feel included, and some who are included feel misrepresented, and meanwhile you get all the phobic folks misrepresenting the letters. Better to come up with an inclusive generic term probably, although that won't please folks either.

As far as gay folks having a "mental disorder," i don't find them any less sane than het folks, who are pretty fucked up in a lot of ways ourselves. The whole "mental disorder" thing seemed to stem simply from either religious values or that they were not het. So regardless of the reason the judgment was lifted, it seems like a move in the right direction.

That is alot of words to say "I'm a straight male but i accept currently accepted beliefs"

That's our Rixus.

 

[Rixus]

That's our Rixus.

I guess that's Ti for you. I just read a thread, think about it for 5 minutes and then try to summarise my train of thought. It's usually quite a brief summary comparatively speaking, and I miss lots of interesting details out.

 

[Jennywocky]

I guess that's Ti for you. I just read a thread, think about it for 5 minutes and then try to summarise my train of thought. It's usually quite a brief summary comparatively speaking, and I miss lots of interesting details out.

There's nothing wrong with details. Life would be boring without them.

 

[Happy]

I am a straight man-born-man.

Born a man? Wow. That must have been a horrible birth for your mother.

In other news, my only gripe with the acronym is that it can't be pronounced like a word. I have to say and remember all these letters and it's work and I hate it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Why is a gay gene crucial to pangenderism? Sex != Gender != Sexuality

Why do you have difficulty accepting it?

 

[QuickTwist]

Born a man? Wow. That must have been a horrible birth for your mother.

In other news, my only gripe with the acronym is that it can't be pronounced like a word. I have to say and remember all these letters and it's work and I hate it.

Don't be ridiculous. I was simply trying to clarify that I am the same gender that I was born as when I said I was a man-born-man. Why do people not get this, its not that complicated

 

[Happy]

Don't be ridiculous. I was simply trying to clarify that I am the same gender that I was born as when I said I was a man-born-man. Why do people not get this, its not that complicated

lol not sure if sarcasm
I hope for the sake of lulz that this is in fact a miscommunication you encounter frequently

 

[QuickTwist]

lol not sure if sarcasm
I hope for the sake of lulz that this is in fact a miscommunication you encounter frequently

I feel like I should be quoting Inappropriate Behavior right now.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I have difficulty accepting "pangender" but I'm incredibly bored right now so I'm going to reconsider it, there's a conceptual loose end I want to investigate.

Is there a gay gene?
As far as I know nobody's found a genetic cause for homosexuality indeed the very notion is scandalous, if there was an identified genetic "defect" it could be checked for and "treated" prior to that person's birth, homosexuality could be "cured" within a generation.

Given that the people of the world haven't lost their collective shit over this I think it's safe to assume the gay gene hasn't been found, indeed that there is no such gay gene to be found which is a fact that also has profound implications. Because if there is no gay gene then anyone could be gay, the nature vs nurture debate is over, sexual identities are entirely arbitrary (insofar as genetics is concerned) so the notion of an inherent sexual identity is defunct.

Your "philosophy" posts are complete and utter SHIT! Stop posting.

Have you even taken a single philosophy course? Surely you don't have a degree.

Anyone idiotic enough to ridicule great philosophers, while having never directly read or studied their works, should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all.

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

 

[The Gopher]

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

Huh I haven't seen Proxy here for ages.... This must be some long term rage/venting.

 

[Black Rose]

Huh I haven't seen Proxy here for ages.... This must be some long term rage/venting.

I don't know about proxy but in another thread Cognisant did say Immanuel Kant was bullshit even though he never read him. I never read him but I at least in the past watched like 5 very long videos that explained Kant's philosophy. You just Kant can't call something bullshit without understanding it first. That's what creationist do with evolution. They call it bullshit without understanding it. Many atheists call philosophy bullshit because they say all you need is science to explain everything. Atheists don't understand philosophy at all. (I know I am being too general saying that)

 

[QuickTwist]

Your "philosophy" posts are complete and utter SHIT! Stop posting.

Have you even taken a single philosophy course? Surely you don't have a degree.

Anyone idiotic enough to ridicule great philosophers, while having never directly read or studied their works, should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all.

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

I wouldn't mind you looking at a philosophy thread I started. I understand its not your job to decide who's ideas have merit or not, but I was hoping you could tell me what your thoughts are on a philosophical view I have on determinism. Ofc I would prefer honest feedback rather than just saying it is great. I tried to PM you and I didn't have an option to do that. So sorry if I am asking in this thread and not PMing you.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your "philosophy" posts are complete and utter SHIT! Stop posting.

Have you even taken a single philosophy course? Surely you don't have a degree.

Anyone idiotic enough to ridicule great philosophers, while having never directly read or studied their works, should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all.

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

This is an official warning.

If you disagree with someone's thoughts, attack their thoughts. Don't dismiss the thought by attacking the poster.

It's fine if you disagree (I do), but this sort of dismissal is unacceptable. How is he supposed to develop his ideas if he's not allowed to talk about them? His opening sentence stated he was reconsidering his position, not pushing one.

He also didn't criticise any philosophers in this thread. So your attack lacks relevance.

Do you really think the layperson should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all?

You don't get to decide who does and does not post. You don't get to decide who gets to explore philosophy. Proxy hasn't been here in years. You should probably grease that chip up and ease it off your shoulder. I expect much more than base ad homs from someone longschlonging their fabled arts degree.

 

[The Gopher]

This is an official warning.

I mean I'm sure you have already but you might want to PM him. If he isn't around much then he might miss this then not realize he was warned if anything happens in the future.

 

[Hadoblado]

Cheers bud.

 

[redbaron]

Your "philosophy" posts are complete and utter SHIT! Stop posting.

Have you even taken a single philosophy course? Surely you don't have a degree.

Anyone idiotic enough to ridicule great philosophers, while having never directly read or studied their works, should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all.

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

congrats on your expensive confetti :^)

sorry it didn't impart any wisdom :^(

 

[ummidk]

Your "philosophy" posts are complete and utter SHIT! Stop posting.

Have you even taken a single philosophy course? Surely you don't have a degree.

Anyone idiotic enough to ridicule great philosophers, while having never directly read or studied their works, should never try to engage in philosophical discussion at all.

Go fuck yourself. Stop posting.
And this goes for Proxy as well.
You guys are complete fucking idiots.

Lmao good day.

You have to be trolling, right?...right?

 

[Shieru]

People who call themselves pangender are likely just having trouble fitting in with any gender roles as opposed to experiencing any actual gender identity crisis. Its like they don't know that gender roles are just made up roles created by the evolution of their culture in order make them a more efficient product/producer of society. Perhaps they do and haven't figured out how to cope with it.

It would be better to tackle the issue of gender roles directly than to amuck with these weird liberal vocab words.

but what about the hermaphrodites?! i do have to agree to some extent about the method of addressing things, though. the LGBTQ.... acronym is becoming obnoxiously long. and they just added 'kink' i believe, which seems like more of a fetish than an orientation? but then again, what is the right way to delineate these things? perhaps it's best to just be happy for the newfound expression of sexual diversity, for now at least.

from the research i've done, it seems that men tend to be more compartmentalized about their sexuality and more strongly identify with their gender than women in general. the average woman will be attracted not only to both men and women, but to animals and inanimate objects too o.0 all this is often subconscious because, as you mention Grayman, culture makes such amorphous proclivities unacceptable. so many women will pick a side and deny the nuanced reality of their experience. men tend to be either straight or gay, with proportionally fewer in the gray area. this difference seems to be due to the 'intuitive' tendencies of women, which lend us to see things more symbolically - vs men who have more grey matter on average and therefore tend to compartmentalize things with a relatively literal ideation. Jung spoke of female sexuality as something based on idealism and impetus toward higher emotional experience, and male sexuality as based on direct physical experience. this is all very general, of course, but i think innate psychological difference could account for some of the peculiarities being seen.

I have difficulty accepting "pangender" but I'm incredibly bored right now so I'm going to reconsider it, there's a conceptual loose end I want to investigate.

in truth, we all are both masculine and feminine psychologically. so when it comes to someone choosing to associate them self with gender in a certain way, a lot of things are possible. from an objective stance, the idea of someone whose physically male or female claiming to be both genders seems absurd, but human beings aren't objective creatures just like any aspect of identity, it's more a matter of self-expression than concrete fact.

Is there a gay gene?

Reminds me of this (apologies if you've already seen it!):

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

 

[QuickTwist]

S=Skank

 

[Rixus]

from the research i've done, it seems that men tend to be more compartmentalized about their sexuality and more strongly identify with their gender than women in general. the average woman will be attracted not only to both men and women, but to animals and inanimate objects too o.0 all this is often subconscious because, as you mention Grayman, culture makes such amorphous proclivities unacceptable. so many women will pick a side and deny the nuanced reality of their experience. men tend to be either straight or gay, with proportionally fewer in the gray area. this difference seems to be due to the 'intuitive' tendencies of women, which lend us to see things more symbolically - vs men who have more grey matter on average and therefore tend to compartmentalize things with a relatively literal ideation. Jung spoke of female sexuality as something based on idealism and impetus toward higher emotional experience, and male sexuality as based on direct physical experience. this is all very general, of course, but i think innate psychological difference could account for some of the peculiarities being seen.

That sounds very Freud inspired to me. Like, just because you think something is beautiful does it necessarily mean it is sexually arousing? Does it not seem more likely that attachment to animals is more likely an extension of mothering instincts than a sexual attraction? Yes, women do appear to have more shades of grey in this regard (most of the women I know have experimented at least, yet I don't believe I've met a guy who would admit the same). I would suggest this may be societal - it's highly socially unacceptable for a guy to experiment or to try both, but back in say Roman times it was common place for heterosexual males to have sex with other male business partners in order to sweeten a financial deal. Perhaps it's just ingrained into us now not to be.

(Although, the finding of inanimate objects attractive would seem to explain why it's acceptable for women to use certain toys in private, yet for a man to own a "flesh light" would be completely laughable, but again I think that's more societal than anything else.)

As for compartmentalisation, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know if it's what you mean, but I don't compartmentalise attraction or romantic feelings. If your mind isn't attractive, I'm not going to find your body attractive.

 

[Shieru]

That sounds very Freud inspired to me.

actually, it's not purely psychological research (i.e. self-assay). the studies i'm referencing used physical measurements of blood flow, pupil dilation, etc. to determine sexual response, as in this example.

Like, just because you think something is beautiful does it necessarily mean it is sexually arousing?

as explained in the article, not necessarily. it seems these sexual responses are primarily subconscious in women, as most of them only recognize and report the experiences which align with their orientation. if i may interject my own hypothesis, however, i would argue that sex goes beyond the straight-forward topic of attraction and arousal in human beings. from what i've seen/read it seems there is a sexual function in the psyche, much like the 8 Jungian functions which underlay the types, which is an aspect that forms our experience continuously. the sensation of beauty will quite often include some degree of sexual engagement, although it is more subtle and experienced differently than a direct arousal. but we are sexual beings, just as we are thinking and intuitive beings. sex is one of the fundamental instincts/sensations at the root of our experience, and it is utilized by the psyche in nuanced ways.

Yes, women do appear to have more shades of grey in this regard (most of the women I know have experimented at least, yet I don't believe I've met a guy who would admit the same). I would suggest this may be societal - it's highly socially unacceptable for a guy to experiment or to try both, but back in say Roman times it was common place for heterosexual males to have sex with other male business partners in order to sweeten a financial deal. Perhaps it's just ingrained into us now not to be.

yes, i do think you have a point. society's standards (at least in the west - not sure about other parts of the world) do make it easier for women to be honest about homosexuality than men. but this may be partially a result of our subliminal recognition of the variability of female sexuality. it's likely got a lot more to do with the obvious masculine/feminine stereotypes - men are supposed to be tough and being gay means you're 'too sensitive' - but i think many of the cultural habits we settle upon are the result of a lot of different factors.

As for compartmentalisation, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know if it's what you mean, but I don't compartmentalise attraction or romantic feelings. If your mind isn't attractive, I'm not going to find your body attractive.

ah, sorry if i used a confusing word :P what i meant is that men tend to delineate their sexual preferences more than women; they're more likely to be either gay or straight. psychologically, delineation has to do with the judgement functions, and results in a more linear, direct concept of things (vs ambiguity, which is the state that intuition and feeling tend to exist in). if males in general have a more linear approach to matters, and females a more intuitive/feeling one, then this could explain the apparent differences we see in sexual preferences. from what i've read it's likely a matter of neurology and how it coincides with the psychological tendencies of the sexes; men in general have more gray matter (related to intellectual processing), and women more white matter (related to interconnections between neurons - i.e. intuitive intelligence).

 

[Rixus]

actually, it's not purely psychological research (i.e. self-assay). the studies i'm referencing used physical measurements of blood flow, pupil dilation, etc. to determine sexual response, as in this example.



as explained in the article, not necessarily. it seems these sexual responses are primarily subconscious in women, as most of them only recognize and report the experiences which align with their orientation. if i may interject my own hypothesis, however, i would argue that sex goes beyond the straight-forward topic of attraction and arousal in human beings. from what i've seen/read it seems there is a sexual function in the psyche, much like the 8 Jungian functions which underlay the types, which is an aspect that forms our experience continuously. the sensation of beauty will quite often include some degree of sexual engagement, although it is more subtle and experienced differently than a direct arousal. but we are sexual beings, just as we are thinking and intuitive beings. sex is one of the fundamental instincts/sensations at the root of our experience, and it is utilized by the psyche in nuanced ways.



yes, i do think you have a point. society's standards (at least in the west - not sure about other parts of the world) do make it easier for women to be honest about homosexuality than men. but this may be partially a result of our subliminal recognition of the variability of female sexuality. it's likely got a lot more to do with the obvious masculine/feminine stereotypes - men are supposed to be tough and being gay means you're 'too sensitive' - but i think many of the cultural habits we settle upon are the result of a lot of different factors.



ah, sorry if i used a confusing word :P what i meant is that men tend to delineate their sexual preferences more than women; they're more likely to be either gay or straight. psychologically, delineation has to do with the judgement functions, and results in a more linear, direct concept of things (vs ambiguity, which is the state that intuition and feeling tend to exist in). if males in general have a more linear approach to matters, and females a more intuitive/feeling one, then this could explain the apparent differences we see in sexual preferences. from what i've read it's likely a matter of neurology and how it coincides with the psychological tendencies of the sexes; men in general have more gray matter (related to intellectual processing), and women more white matter (related to interconnections between neurons - i.e. intuitive intelligence).

I get what you mean now - more complicated than animals arousing women as it originally sounded (although I can't imagine how people felt when the researchers jotted down that they were aroused by chimps) - it seemed to be suggesting the act of coupling itself initiated an emotional reaction for the need to couple and that could lead to arousal, maybe. (Remembers to have the Discover Channel in my subscription next time I'm in a relationship .)

I can agree with a lot of what the article said from personal experience - it may seem completely random when a woman is in the right mood. It can seem like there is no pattern to it, when something works one day and not another. It seems influenced by mood at time, usually. The points that self image can be a turn off is definitely true (as most people who've been in long term relationships will attest to - I once had a partner have me take a picture of her in a position to see how she looked and then refused to do it in said position under the grounds that the picture appeared unattractive. Which totally bonkers from a guy's perspective. And yes, we are a little simpler in this regard - whatever our mood, sex will always cheer us up and it's very easy to initiate.

I've also seen the sort of situation it was talking about where close female friends have a relationship and then go back to being heterosexual afterwards, which indicated that female sexuality is more malleable than male. Although in defence of my societal argument, this is known to happen between men in prison where once the situation is over know one outside of the relationship need ever know it happened.

I've also observed a few women who state they believe they are bisexual, but have chosen which way they prefer not because of preference but because they find one or the other more convenient. I've wondered if a few of the lesbian women I've met who only switched after an unpleasant relationship fall into this category.

And where does inanimate objects fit in to this?

(Also - the fact that I have been reading your posts in the voice of Luna Lovegood since the odd socks thing makes this conversation slightly weird.)

 

[Shieru]

(Also - the fact that I have been reading your posts in the voice of Luna Lovegood since the odd socks thing makes this conversation slightly weird.)

you just totally made my day with this! LOL

Spoiler

with her stunning talent for weirdness, i'm sure Luna would approve:

And where does inanimate objects fit in to this?

i think this is probably related to the intuitive/symbolic nature of female perception. i dunno if you've studied much of Jung, but he chronicled dozens of symbols (many of them animals actually) which relate primordially to sexuality, masculinity, femininity, etc. if an object happens to resemble one of these such symbols, it could potentially result in arousal.

 

[majohnso]

i say, if someone else is into anything sexually, as long as they dont impinge on my life and wellbeing or hurt others, go for it

sex i think is so complex, and has so many different cause and effects, that there is enough problems in this world, let people have their pleasures

 

[QuickTwist]

i say, if someone else is into anything sexually, as long as they dont impinge on my life and wellbeing or hurt others, go for it

sex i think is so complex, and has so many different cause and effects, that there is enough problems in this world, let people have their pleasures

That makes zero sense to me.

 

[Hadoblado]

Live and let live.

 

[PmjPmj]

Live and let live.

This.

My only real issue is that some individuals from these groups are seeking to impose their language upon others, and failure to 'play the game' can result in very real punishment.

That is bullshit. That needs to fuck off in its entirety.

Otherwise, be who you have to be. So long as you aren't hurting anyone, whatever.

<I also believe that we're all just numbers and should fall the fuck in-line, but I'll spare you my Te rhetoric>.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Otherwise, be who you have to be. So long as you aren't hurting anyone, whatever.

this comment is insensitive to sadists and masochists, you disgusting bigot

I DEMAND A SAFE SPACE