Sexuality

[eliasfrost]

I agree with number 1, but i would argue that a "fetish" is a sub-genre
of the sexual genres, therefore making "zoophilia" a root genre and not a
fetish. I would argue that the sexual genres (i.e. homosexuality,
heterosexuality, etc) are generalised terms specific only when
referencing the genders (and possibly species, as in bestiality). All
the acts committed following from the root genre could and would then be
labelled a "fetish," and any genre capable of "supporting" the fetish
would have said fetish under that root genre (not restricting it to any
one root genre).

And you base this on what scientific study?

I define homosexuality as people of any sexuality committing homosexual
acts. This may include heterosexuals committing homosexual acts;
homosexuals committing homosexual acts; etc. At the time the newly
introduced sexual act is committed, then the individual takes on the
role of the currently committed sexuality. This implies that a
homosexual can therefore stop being a homosexual by committing
heterosexual, or other sexual, acts.

And what would you define a "homosexual act" because they are exactly (notice, EXACTLY, 100%, no nothin' bull, on point) exactly, the, same, as, heterosexual, acts. There. is. no. difference. between. a. homosexual. and. a. heterosexual. person. It's the same thing. Same feelings, same arousal, same everything.

Do I need to spell that out again?

I find this statement ironic in its own right, as it calls me ignorant
yet proceeds to leave me in "ignorance" by use of ad hominem rather than
attempting to support their own assertion. Do you not recall that
homosexuality used to be a declared mental disorder? Yet, it is no
longer declared that because people asserted "gay rights" and "love."
The same line of reasoning can be used for other forms of sexuality, but
i'm "the ignorant one" for realising this?

I have been thinking some more about this and you know what? This argument is flawed to the bone because that would imply that being a serial killer could be okay (or should I say is okay) but isn't because we have told ourselves that it isn't. That's such a fluid and loose way of thinking that i'm not even sure that I would call that a valid "opinion". Also, based on what you said that heterosexuality _could_ be a mental disorder, you are implying that every little animal, every organism and microorganism on this earth could be mentaly disrupted? c'mon man, you must be trolling the lot of us because that's just silly.

[Danny Boy]

Your Computer. try to understand this. Sexuality is not a choice. did you choose to be straight? (assuming that you are.)

no. looking at girls simple gives you a boner. the same thing goes whit gays (but whit the same gender). why does everything must seem like a choice to people? you don't have a choice you simple are. its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

[Nice]

well guys if you agree with Your computer or not, you have to admit, he has some skills in debating

[eliasfrost]

well guys if you agree with Your computer or not, you have to admit, he has some skills in debating

Skills is not all, it can make your argument seem well educated but behind it all it's just an argument.

[failedALIAS]

its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

Uh, Yeah I did. And I'm regretting it more and more everyday. I could've *Sob* Been a octopus!
It's a perfect representation of who I am: bendy, able to fit my body in anything larger than a toe, and finally the inborn urge to rape japanese school girls!

[Danny Boy]

its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

Uh, Yeah I did. And I'm regretting it more and more everyday. I could've *Sob* Been a octopus!
It's a perfect representation of who I am: bendy, able to fit my body in anything larger than a toe, and finally the inborn urge to rape japanese school girls!

You Freaking Soul Eater fan! octopuses stink! I'd Prefer to be a bear!

[Sexbad]

its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

Uh, Yeah I did. And I'm regretting it more and more everyday. I could've *Sob* Been a octopus!
It's a perfect representation of who I am: bendy, able to fit my body in anything larger than a toe, and finally the inborn urge to rape japanese school girls!

You Freaking Soul Eater fan! octopuses stink! I'd Prefer to be a bear!

Bear is actually a classification of gay guy body type. If sexuality was a choice you could totally be a bear.

[Your Computer]

And you base this on what scientific study?

Are the definition of words solely dependent on scientific study? Or are words generally a reference of reality? If mankind wanted to, "green" could have represented a different color (or anything at all) and we would have continued that without conflict.

And what would you define a "homosexual act" because they are exactly (notice, EXACTLY, 100%, no nothin' bull, on point) exactly, the, same, as, heterosexual, acts. There. is. no. difference. between. a. homosexual. and. a. heterosexual. person. It's the same thing. Same feelings, same arousal, same everything.

If there wasn't any difference on any scale, would i be able to further define a "homosexual act" as sexual intercourse between at least two men with no women or between at least two women with no men?

Do I need to spell that out again?

No, i am more than content in the fact that you stated such an argument. (See your quote below as to why.)

I have been thinking some more about this and you know what? This argument is flawed to the bone because that would imply that being a serial killer could be okay (or should I say is okay) but isn't because we have told ourselves that it isn't. That's such a fluid and loose way of thinking that i'm not even sure that I would call that a valid "opinion". Also, based on what you said that heterosexuality _could_ be a mental disorder, you are implying that every little animal, every organism and microorganism on this earth could be mentaly disrupted? c'mon man, you must be trolling the lot of us because that's just silly.

Of course, to assume that you see any correlation between this quote of yours and your previous quote should (would) be wishful thinking on my side. Assume reference to other kinds of sexualities, then you may see it.

As i've mentioned before, morality is an illusion without an absolute authority. In a world without an absolute authority, majority would be the only thing capable of sustaining "morality." Of course, if an absolute authority existed and majority sustained "morality" against this absolute authority, then the sustainability of such "morality" would itself be an illusion. For at any time such illusion of sustainability could be overruled by the absolute authority.

Your Computer. try to understand this. Sexuality is not a choice. did you choose to be straight? (assuming that you are.)

no. looking at girls simple gives you a boner. the same thing goes whit gays (but whit the same gender). why does everything must seem like a choice to people? you don't have a choice you simple are. its like being human. you didn't choose to be human either.

True, i didn't choose to be human, but i did choose to be a heterosexual. Sexual stimuli is neutral. Through nurture my sexual dominance became heterosexuality. Simply looking at girls is not itself a sexual stimuli (at least for me). Greater motivation is required for sexual stimuli to occur.

---

Note to spukrian: I am almost done consuming the referenced scientific article.

[Statyk]

To Sexbad:
I call a straight friend of mine "Bear" because he's a big dude... GREAT. NEVER GOING TO IMAGINE IT INNOCENTLY AGAIN.

To Your Computer:
I admire the strong use of vocabulary, it's a valuable resource when picking arguments and displaying opinions. But do you ever think you use it too strongly?

[spukrian]

I agree puberty is a natural process, but i wouldn't agree that puberty dictates definitive sexuality.

No, it only "awakens" the sexuality that is already there, the sexuality was dictated much earlier.

I agree with number 1, but i would argue that a "fetish" is a sub-genre of the sexual genres, therefore making "zoophilia" a root genre and not a fetish. I would argue that the sexual genres (i.e. homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc) are generalised terms specific only when referencing the genders (and possibly species, as in bestiality).

You probably right about zoophilia, it was a bad example. But other than that, I still stand by what I outlined.

It may be true that it is safe to assume that, until an act is otherwise committed, the individual is a heterosexual, given the inherent structure of the human body. However, this, obviously, can be (unofficially) "overruled" by the actions the individual decides to take.

So basically you're saying that the human body is unable to feel attraction to the same biological gender?