Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:46 pm
Actually, nevermind, that still involves pregnancy. yuck
THE PACK Message Boards
This is the home of united werewolf fans across the globe. Searching to improve the image of the werewolf in popular culture, known as... The Pack
https://thepack.network/thepackboard/
What are you?
Page 3 of 4
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:12 pm
Two and three. I choose to reproduce by parthenogenesis!
Actually, nevermind, that still involves pregnancy. yuck
Actually, nevermind, that still involves pregnancy. yuck
It's time to renew a subscription to "Anything That Mov
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:16 pm
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.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:07 am
very true scott
A+!
A+!
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:36 pm
I'm bisexual, I also hate myself for it. Don't know if that makes me homophobic or not...
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:24 pm
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......
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:58 pm
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......
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:11 pm
normalcy is the compliance of being in the crowd, you turn grey, you're then just another face in the crowd. To be normal is to be doomed to a life of repedity and boredom. I pitty you for such a want.
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:31 pm
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. )
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:12 am
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*
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:45 am
Actually, Anubis, I think you put that rather well.
It just falls back into that category of you are what you believe you are.
It just falls back into that category of you are what you believe you are.
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:44 am
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?
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:56 am
I'm a metrosexual!
No, seriously. I'm straight... Boring, isn't it?
No, seriously. I'm straight... Boring, isn't it?
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:28 am
Straigt people, i don't mind em, but i prefer to think about women as friends, not sexulal toys, I save that for guys
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:37 pm
Fang wrote:Straigt people, i don't mind em, but i prefer to think about women as friends, not sexulal toys, I save that for guys
you save that for guys or you save that for me??????
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:40 pm
You're a guy aren't You? *nips and growls playfully*
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:41 pm
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......
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:42 pm
im a male wolf...... and you could have said "my mate" instead of guys in general....Fang wrote:You're a guy aren't You? *nips and growls playfully*
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:44 pm
I should have, sorry *Pounces on top of you And hugs* It's been too long
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:00 pm
I'm Straight
Laters
Laters
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:09 pm
Z wrote:wut about...trisexual?
and what would that 3rd sex be? Hmmm?
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:29 pm
They're people who will try anything once basicallyZ wrote:wut about...trisexual?
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:32 pm
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
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:18 pm
now if two male werewolves have sex what does that make them??
*buries head in muzzle and hides* ohhh im getting banned for that..
*buries head in muzzle and hides* ohhh im getting banned for that..
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:23 pm
now you won't, it just makes them gay werewolves