Actually, nevermind, that still involves pregnancy. yuck
What are you?
-
PariahPoet
- Legendary
- Posts: 2865
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:05 pm
- Custom Title: The one and only were-jaguarundi!
- Gender: Female
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
-
Scott Gardener
- Legendary
- Posts: 4731
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Mood: Excited
- Location: Rockwall, Texas (and beyond infinity)
- Contact:
It's time to renew a subscription to "Anything That Mov
It boils down to the issues of categorization and nominalism.
My father was a strong stickler for distinguishing between true philosophy and nominalism. Nominalism is the debate about what words mean. While it's true that naming things help us determine how we relate to the world, it only defines the world to us; it does not define the world to itself.
What should it really truly matter if one calls or does not call someone a furry? Is it really worth all the heated arguments we see all the time?
None-the-less, for the sake of argument, I'll contemplate the matter.
"homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual" imply sexual relations, though the terms have been applied beyond the most literal context and have been applied to general lifestyles and relationships. They have also been applied to identities and self-concepts--and this is where the conflicts occur, because the self-concepts don't always match up with the observable behavior. To add additional layers of complexity, there have been historic social stigmas applied to homosexuality and bisexuality for over a thousand years, and this stigma has only recently been formally challenged by more forward-thinking societies. We're watching a social revolution happen around us, even now. (Might want to mention it to any friends or relatives feeling suicidal--ask them if they want to miss history in the making? We're laying groundwork for freedom from societal gender constraints. There may come a time when people don't have to be men or women anymore, but can be both, neither, or something else entirely. Granted, this is getting off-track, since gender identity and sexual preference are two different matters at the moment.)
Some data points I'm considering at the moment:
1. Definitions are applied without applying current social stigmas--logic does not acknowledge any inherent wrongness in homosexuality other than inefficiency of direct biological reproduction, and adoption or mating outside the coupling pair both allow reproduction to occur, and future technology should allow some form of gene splicing that could emulate reproduction. The goal of relationships has been moving away from biological reproduction anyway, towards a more advanced form of interpersonal relationship. Modern and future persons reproduce themselves as much or more through ideas and knowledge than they do simple biology. (Yes, this is intellectual-centric, but I'm an arrogant human, so I believe I'm right.)
2. Monogamous heterosexuals are still heterosexuals. Therefore, monogamous homosexuals should still be defined as homosexuals. The debate now becomes determining at which point a cut-off applies between romantic relationships and friendships.
3. In general, we allow ourselves a plethora of friends. Most of us only allow ourselves one romantic partner at a time. My wife Cathey has no reason to be worried about my cheating on her by being on this web site talking with all of you.
4. But, she wouldn't be so happy if I were looking at certain other notorious parts of the Internet, which goes back to core sexual motivations.
Basically, "homosexual" applies if you're in an exclusive relation with a person of the same gender. (Then again, this argument breaks down as soon as one walks into the nearest Discotheque. But, hear me out.) If you consider yourself romantically involved, then sexual preference definitions come into play.
Note also that a lot of people consider themselves one sexual preference but allow for one or two exceptions. Some of this may be the result of the social stigma applied to homosexuality through the years--people who had "that one incident in high school" and so forth. It's also true that bisexuals have often reported leaning one way or the other, showing that there are outliers within the terms, creating perhaps a continuum with straight at one end, gay at the other, and bisexual in or near the middle.
My father was a strong stickler for distinguishing between true philosophy and nominalism. Nominalism is the debate about what words mean. While it's true that naming things help us determine how we relate to the world, it only defines the world to us; it does not define the world to itself.
What should it really truly matter if one calls or does not call someone a furry? Is it really worth all the heated arguments we see all the time?
None-the-less, for the sake of argument, I'll contemplate the matter.
"homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual" imply sexual relations, though the terms have been applied beyond the most literal context and have been applied to general lifestyles and relationships. They have also been applied to identities and self-concepts--and this is where the conflicts occur, because the self-concepts don't always match up with the observable behavior. To add additional layers of complexity, there have been historic social stigmas applied to homosexuality and bisexuality for over a thousand years, and this stigma has only recently been formally challenged by more forward-thinking societies. We're watching a social revolution happen around us, even now. (Might want to mention it to any friends or relatives feeling suicidal--ask them if they want to miss history in the making? We're laying groundwork for freedom from societal gender constraints. There may come a time when people don't have to be men or women anymore, but can be both, neither, or something else entirely. Granted, this is getting off-track, since gender identity and sexual preference are two different matters at the moment.)
Some data points I'm considering at the moment:
1. Definitions are applied without applying current social stigmas--logic does not acknowledge any inherent wrongness in homosexuality other than inefficiency of direct biological reproduction, and adoption or mating outside the coupling pair both allow reproduction to occur, and future technology should allow some form of gene splicing that could emulate reproduction. The goal of relationships has been moving away from biological reproduction anyway, towards a more advanced form of interpersonal relationship. Modern and future persons reproduce themselves as much or more through ideas and knowledge than they do simple biology. (Yes, this is intellectual-centric, but I'm an arrogant human, so I believe I'm right.)
2. Monogamous heterosexuals are still heterosexuals. Therefore, monogamous homosexuals should still be defined as homosexuals. The debate now becomes determining at which point a cut-off applies between romantic relationships and friendships.
3. In general, we allow ourselves a plethora of friends. Most of us only allow ourselves one romantic partner at a time. My wife Cathey has no reason to be worried about my cheating on her by being on this web site talking with all of you.
4. But, she wouldn't be so happy if I were looking at certain other notorious parts of the Internet, which goes back to core sexual motivations.
Basically, "homosexual" applies if you're in an exclusive relation with a person of the same gender. (Then again, this argument breaks down as soon as one walks into the nearest Discotheque. But, hear me out.) If you consider yourself romantically involved, then sexual preference definitions come into play.
Note also that a lot of people consider themselves one sexual preference but allow for one or two exceptions. Some of this may be the result of the social stigma applied to homosexuality through the years--people who had "that one incident in high school" and so forth. It's also true that bisexuals have often reported leaning one way or the other, showing that there are outliers within the terms, creating perhaps a continuum with straight at one end, gay at the other, and bisexual in or near the middle.
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...
-
White Paw
-
psiguy
- Legendary
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:27 pm
- Custom Title: The pack's Linux Nerd
- Location: (A) - - (I am here) - - (B)
- Contact:
When my brain is not fried, I'm straight as a geometric line. y=mx+b
When my brain is fried, I can be asexual. p(0,0)
When my brain is really fried, and I can't help but think "dirty thoughts", I'm just plain sexual. {X|-X<=0<=X}
But I don't realy think I'm gay at all. I shudder to think of being on any end of homosexual intercourse. Y =/= AX^2 + BX + C
(My brain is currently kentucky fried due to college semester comming close to an end, so I'm in between straight and asexual. It also explains the math. )
When my brain is fried, I can be asexual. p(0,0)
When my brain is really fried, and I can't help but think "dirty thoughts", I'm just plain sexual. {X|-X<=0<=X}
But I don't realy think I'm gay at all. I shudder to think of being on any end of homosexual intercourse. Y =/= AX^2 + BX + C
(My brain is currently kentucky fried due to college semester comming close to an end, so I'm in between straight and asexual. It also explains the math. )
-
Anubis
- Legendary
- Posts: 6429
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:57 pm
- Custom Title: Eletist Jerk
- Gender: Male
- Location: Crossroads, ganking a hordie lowbie.
- Contact:
What i think your saying is that you feel that being a bi-sexual is not you. I bet you think your body has betrayed you, by being attracted to the same sex.Dyviath wrote:I don't want to be this way, I just want to be normal..White Paw wrote:Dyviath wrote:I'm bisexual, I also hate myself for it. Don't know if that makes me homophobic or not...
why???????????... dont hate yourself for being whom you are......
White Paw i don't mean offened you but my personal belief is you are what your heart says not what your body says. If he feels being bi is not him, then it's not him. It should be his choice who he wants a intimate relation with not his body's. People say if you feel some thing then you that some thing, but it's a question of personal identity. If he feels that being a Bi is him then, he should go hit on both men and women. Because if your heart isn't with something then most likely it isn't for him. he could have an identity crisis if his heart and mind don't agree, just like the one he is having now. He gave him self a label that his heart doesn't agree with, and if his heart chooses that being a bi is right for then he should follow it.
And Dyviath what makes you a bi is not your thoughts or your body's reactions. it's your actions and your personal label that you... and only you can put your self under.
I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice, i'm saying that the subconcious or heart knows what is best for him or her self.
*Hides in a bunker for possible flame war*
-
PariahPoet
- Legendary
- Posts: 2865
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:05 pm
- Custom Title: The one and only were-jaguarundi!
- Gender: Female
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
-
White Paw
Anubis wrote:What i think your saying is that you feel that being a bi-sexual is not you. I bet you think your body has betrayed you, by being attracted to the same sex.Dyviath wrote:I don't want to be this way, I just want to be normal..White Paw wrote:Dyviath wrote:I'm bisexual, I also hate myself for it. Don't know if that makes me homophobic or not...
why???????????... dont hate yourself for being whom you are......
White Paw i don't mean offened you but my personal belief is you are what your heart says not what your body says. If he feels being bi is not him, then it's not him. It should be his choice who he wants a intimate relation with not his body's. People say if you feel some thing then you that some thing, but it's a question of personal identity. If he feels that being a Bi is him then, he should go hit on both men and women. Because if your heart isn't with something then most likely it isn't for him. he could have an identity crisis if his heart and mind don't agree, just like the one he is having now. He gave him self a label that his heart doesn't agree with, and if his heart chooses that being a bi is right for then he should follow it.
And Dyviath what makes you a bi is not your thoughts or your body's reactions. it's your actions and your personal label that you... and only you can put your self under.
I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice, i'm saying that the subconcious or heart knows what is best for him or her self.
*Hides in a bunker for possible flame war*
you know ive never really thought of it like that....but...of course im sure of what i am and i feel great about it.....so i guess thats why?
-
White Paw
-
Dyviath
- Pack Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: New Brunswick, Canada
- Contact:
Eh, not really. I'm just having a hard time accepting it.Anubis wrote:What i think your saying is that you feel that being a bi-sexual is not you. I bet you think your body has betrayed you, by being attracted to the same sex.Dyviath wrote:I don't want to be this way, I just want to be normal..White Paw wrote:Dyviath wrote:I'm bisexual, I also hate myself for it. Don't know if that makes me homophobic or not...
why???????????... dont hate yourself for being whom you are......
-
White Paw
-
Faolan Bloodtooth
- Legendary
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:05 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
Figarou
- Legendary
- Posts: 13085
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:27 am
- Custom Title: Executive Producer (Red Victoria)
- Gender: Male
- Location: Tejas
Figarou wrote:Z wrote:wut about...trisexual?
and what would that 3rd sex be? Hmmm?
wait...never mind.
looked it up.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... id=1055351
-
White Paw