Cheetah
Deity
I'm afraid you have to get used to labeling. It's too complicated for humans to remember each person as an individual, so we make up stereotypes and put one or more labels on each person we meet.
One of the gay friends I have used to board Russian ships from helicopters to look for contraband and smuggling, while avoiding shooting the crew even though they were drunk and wielding knives or pistols.yup, same here. I never understood the excessively loud denials. I don't know why I should be repulsed by the male form. It's probably got to do with the idea that many still view it as 'unmanly' to be gay, so people try to position themselves as far from gay as possible in order to appear manly
Doesn't sounds very unmanly to me.
I simply don't like the male body. I'm fine with my own, and I have no problem being in a sauna or a Japanese onsen and sitting right next to naked guys and talking about whatever. But there will be no touching and no direct looking! Staring is impolite and touching is WAY out of line! Unless one wants to pick a fight that is.
But sure, you can suggest that I'm insecure in my sexuality or in denial about something if you like. You're wrong and I don't care.
On the other hand, I'll argue that those who could be okay with experimenting are, say, 80% heterosexual then, in contrast to those of us who are very close to 100% heterosexual.
Not Pepsi itself, but Coca-Cola Light, Coca-Cola Zero and Pepsi Max gives me a terrible feeling afterwards and I really need something else to remove the taste. I would rather go thirsty than drink any of those three.
'Social conditioning' = 'brainwashing'. It's just two terms for the same thing, one term having more negative connotations than the other.
Again, 'disease' is just a term meaning 'a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors'. Personally I have diseases such as asthma, allergies, extremely high metabolism and near-sightedness. I don't put any value-judgment on a disease except for noting that it is, and that a specific disease may reduce an individual's value at certain tasks (I wasn't allowed to be a military pilot, I can't work on farms, etc.). Generally, I take offense at people being offended by me correctly labeling things.
I used to consider homosexuality a disease as well, even an incurable disease (for now anyways). However, it seems that homosexuality is existing throughout nature, in most species that have a male-female dimorphism, and that generally a few percentages of individuals in each population are homosexual (it follows, of course, that a greater number of individuals are on the scale somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality). Furthermore, as there doesn't seem to be any natural pressure to eliminate homosexuality, it seems that it is actually a successful way for nature to make sure related individuals have an increased chance of propagation, even if the homosexual individuals themselves are less likely to propagate. Adding to it that homosexual individuals seems to be able to fully accept themselves and their bodies, and can live a good life, there doesn't seem to be any grounds for labeling it a disease.
Transsexuals on the other hand, seems to have greater trouble living a good life with themselves and their bodies without any treatment. And though I have no idea if this is also a condition that can be found in other species (nor any idea how one could test for such a thing), it doesn't seem to have any positive effects on either ones own offspring nor related offspring. As such, I feel justified in labeling it a disease until new information is gained on the subject.
As you saw further down in my post, it is actually a multidimensional matrix. However, when only talking about hetero-, bi- and homosexuality, one dimension usually suffice.
But I argue that it is always my place to judge anything!I couldn't agree more. I think all reasonable people allow a few specific exceptions, but yes, commitment is commitment.
I'm not try to stop you from judging. I'm just going to announce when it's nobody's place to judge something.
If anyone should listen or care about my judgment is an entirely different thing however.
A bit less confused, but there seems to be some previous discussion that passed me by. Whatever.
Don't think you need to worry about being rude to me, you don't even really know me.I don't mean to be rude about it, but I care more about how they choose to describe themselves and why than what you're going to call them.
However, I will not let other people use whatever word they wish to describe themselves without me at least objecting. No group of individuals actually owns the language (at least not the English language). I'm still a bit annoyed by the homosexuals who took over the meaning of the word 'gay', which I think was a perfectly fine word with a good meaning before then.
The idea of a 'dynamic' sexuality is one that I haven't considered much. Is there reason to believe that some people's sexuality actually changes through their lives, regardless of any brainwashing (read: social conditioning if you want
) that may come and go? As I have never even felt anything close to a changing sexuality, I do find that a bit hard to believe. But I also find epigenetics a bit difficult to accept (whether or not it's proven to be correct or not)...Guess we're different then.
Out of curiosity, is this because of your other connotations to the term 'hole', and would a term like 'orifice' be any better?
Personally, I find it to be a very good term from some points of view, if a bit crude.
about this, it's pretty offensive.
