Actually, I have.
I still find it strange though, for from my perspective, there is no way in the multiverses that I could ever want to have sex with men. I'm hardwired to be heterosexual, and I can't fathom how anyone does not know what they are interested in.
Have to put it up to suppression of desires, or brainwashing by regular culture or something I suppose?
Brainwashing sounds so malicious. It's fair to call some instances brainwashing. I don't think all such social conditioning is malicious, though.
That's simply a different level/mix of hormones and such that make the mind opposite of what the body was supposed to be, isn't it?
As such, it is simply a disease where the most effective cure is probably to change the body.
Thinking of the mind and sexuality as existing on a scale and not distinct points makes it easy to accept that such things can happen.
I'm honestly not sure exactly what causes it, though I'd be surprised to find out it's pure body chemistry. My roommate knows a goddamn ton of trannies so I just asked her about your "disease" characterization. My first impulse on seeing "disease" was to say "no, no that's offensive", but it's sort of tough to write off completely, because it
is a sort of disorder that generally does need some form of treatment for the person in question to be able to live a fulfilling life (notably unlike homosexuality). I don't like the connotations of disease, but yeah, I guess it's disease. There's more to the "cure" than changing only the body, though. A lot of living has to be changed too, and therapy is usually pretty important.
Again, from my perspective: I, as a heterosexual, could never have sex - and much less a romantic relationship - with the same sex. If you really like both, then you are closer to the middle of the heterosexual-homosexual scale than strictly heterosexual/homosexual people.
I used to like the scale metaphor, but now, having had relationships with men and women, I don't think one dimension cuts it. Sexuality is complicated. That's part of what makes it so awesome.
Rants have never been a problem on CFC-OT I think.
I wasn't talking about absolute, biological monogamy, where one stays with the first person one has sex with. My objection is that if you promise someone to stay with them, whether that is through marriage or simply through a promise, that actually means something. I've never promised anyone a lifelong commitment, but I have been in relationships and of course you don't stop being attracted to other people. I was still finding other girls I saw extremely attractive even while I was walking hand-in-hand with my girlfriend. That's not the point. One should stay with ones word.
And don't you dare tell me who or what not to judge! I judge everything and everyone all the time! Judging is necessary, judging is good and judging is right!
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.
I'm confused. You're attracted to both and neither sex?
No, I should've worded that better, I suppose, I was extending the comparison. "Do you enjoy the company of men or do you enjoy the company of women?" Both. "Will you assert that god exists or will you assert that god does not exist?" Neither.
I guess I'll agree. Seeing sexuality on the scale from 100% heterosexual to 100% homosexual, most people are close to the 100% heterosexual, but people can technically be all along the scale (Actually this scale is more multidimensional, but whatever).
:yupyup:
Well of course not, if they're homosexual they have (almost) no interest in the opposite sex.
Then I wouldn't call them lesbians. Or at least not 100% lesbian...
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.
The specific examples are of people having a sort of
dynamic sexuality, and I personally buy that it takes more than a couple nights in a hotel room before you aren't [whatever] anymore.
It's possible to do stuff to each other at the same time you know. There is even a number for that.
Still awkward. I can never concentrate.
Actually we can do more, since there are breasts to kiss and fondle and if you really want, you can still get done by your lady, if you are into that thing, so really they are missing out, since they cannot do all the things we can do to women, since they have an extra hole for us, unlike men, with only one hole.
I disagree. The bible does say a lot about sexual pleasure, but only in the context of a marriage. That is really the only thing that people seem to want to look at, is the provision of marriage only sex. The book of Proverbs has plenty of practical advice on the subject of sex.
Did you read those posts before you replied to them? In both cases you seem to be replying to exactly the opposite of what was said.
Also, the word "hole" in this context is unspeakably revolting, please stop using it forever.
Extremely unlikely, since most of them look very mannish, even if they have all the surgery, but the rare few, I will have to keep an eye out for and watch out, but it is unlikely I will ever meet one in real life. I have seen shows like Jerry and Maury where they often have them on, but they are easy to point out that they were once males.
There are more in real life you don't notice. Jerry Springer is a circus sideshow by design.
But for you, they are "the best of both worlds".
You know what they say happens when you assume. That has nothing at all to do with bisexuality, and it's a pretty damn rude thing to assume.
I came out of the closet at 17. Prior to that, I dated (and had sex with) numerous females in high school. It really just wasn't my bag. To be honest, I wish our society wasn't so obsessed with sex and labels. I would prefer that people just judge me as me, and not put imaginary tattoos on my forehead.
(and my GF feels the same regarding her body).
but all the same, I'm simply not sexually attracted to guys.
), but so what.
