Is no one "straight"?

[carsonshepherd]

"One's vision of right and wrong....are subjective..."

I could not disagree more. There is an objective reality and an objective moral code that determines right and wrong, good and bad.

Of course, it is much easier to think otherwise and wallow in subjectivity.

You are now free to travel the world.

ciao

amicus...

Thanks, amicus, for your permission.

Chow (puppy, please)

 

[amicus]

Sweetnpetite...omg...if you are beginning to understand, you are in trouble for sure. Seasons Greetings...

Take amicus twice and call me in the morning....

err was that take two amicus and call me in the morning...


or...?

Happy New Year...perhaps the affliction will fade with time or guilt by association may be infectuous infectious...? oh well....


amicus...

 

[OhMissScarlett]

You know, I'm totally straight and all of the women I've slept with have said the same thing. I don't see what all this fuss is about.

 

[English Lady]

Why does my sexuality have to be decided by who I would let massage my genitals? Sure, if you think of sexuality as something purely mechanical, then yes, stimulation by touch is a pretty gender independant thing. I let a bloke fondle my balls on a regular basis: me.

It is my belief that sexuality sits in the head, that sex does not equal putting things in holes, but that the word derived from 'sex' as in gender. What ideas and prospects sets the heart and hormones in motion? It's not who do you fuck. It's who do you love. 'Love', again an imperfect verb that covers too many variations. but you know what kind of love i mean. The kind that you fall in.

The sight of a man, however physically perfect, does not do anything for me. But I still consider myself bisexual, since i have been and still probably is able to have the kind of relation to both men and women. The right emotional bond, and I'd engage in the mechanics of it all with anyone. If it's a good looking woman, that'd be a bonus. But it's quite a low priority when looknig at the bigger picture.

#L, hopeless romantic

Completely beautiful liar and it all makes perfect sense.

I am pretty certain I'm straight. So far the only attraction I have to another woman is in imagining the reaction of my husband to seeing me together with another woman. Now like Impressive said "never say Never" or something along those lines. Maybe I COULD be attracted to a woman for her and not the idea of turning on my husband with lesbian hijinks BUT it's not happened to me thus far.

A person is what they think/know they are. Someone telling them otherwise will make no difference whatsoever

 

[Kassiana]

I define it as a capacity in us all weather (sic) we know it's there or not to love and find sexual and sensual pleasure from others of either gender. Call it bi-sexual or simply sexual- call me wrong or irrational- but I believe that we all are.

1.It’s whether, not weather.
2. I believe you are utterly wrong and projecting your own desires upon others because that's the way you'd LIKE us to be, not the way we are.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

What if you're straight, but not level?

 

[Guest]

What if you're straight, but not level?

youd still be crooked
but id still love ya

 

[C's Button]

Button...thank you and New Years wishes for you and yours as we stand at 20 paces with dictionaries in hand...

Thank You. Likewise..

I refer to those words on this forum as most who post here do not accept 'words' as actually identifying concepts with precision, which allows them to use and misuse words and concepts as it suits their purposes.

It appears we have a failure to communicate.. I am not one of them. English is a very confusing polyglot of languages; an instructor told me once that the English speakers never met a word they did not like, as evidenced by the number they borrowed from other languages. I understand that living languages evolve over time, that meaning shifts and such, but I do get a bit annoyed when people do randomly assign a new definition. I have not, however, seen it very often here, with all the lurking I have done. I have occasionally done this though, simply because I do not have the word I am searching for in English and so I choose the closest one I can find and go from there, eventually defining the concept enough that the person I am speaking with can get it. Usually, when the person figures out what I am trying to express, they will give me the term I am missing. This is the reason I bravely venture forth into the English speaking world with dictionaries and thesauri in hand, as at least once a day, some one manages to throw me off. My friends and most kind strangers will attempt to assist, though in an open minded and non judgemental way. One of the dictionaries is a dictionary of common slang in the country where I now reside. The Queen's English is not really spoken here.

Most even doubt that 'language' in general can give more than a vague approximation of reality. In doing so, they can then claim than man cannot 'know' anything and that all is subjective and relative.

To which you may have fallen victim also:


No, I have not. I prefer my language to be precise as possible, however, we are talking (I thought) about moral judgments, too. I came from a rather harsh environment, where I was a third class citizen by virtue of my gender alone. Not because I have done anything wrong. Not because I am a criminal, or mentally impaired. Because I do not possess a manly staff of dominance over all and sundry.

Everything in my culture told me I was wrong and they were right and I was screwed in a totally non consensual and non lubed sort of way.

I rejected that vision of right and wrong, because in my experiences, thoughts, emotions whatever, I was fairly certain that to be female is not a crime. If I was not open minded and not willing to consider this, I would still be in hell. Being open to new (to me) concepts and ideas most likely saved my life. How is that for subjectivity?

It is not the precise meaning if languages that I dispute, it is the moral value that others assign them and try to apply to me. I did not say that language and the definitions of words are subjective; I said that moral vision is subjective. I like clarity in my language.


"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective; to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi "You are going to find Luke, that a great many of the truths we cling to depend solely on our point of view." I do not mean to devalue anyone else's experience, but merely point out they are not the same as mine.

That being said, if you meant that all are related to truth Philosophy wise, I apologize for my pedantry and will attempt to locate my philosophy texts and notes from my one semester several years and two continents ago, so we can hash that out some other time....."


"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective;..."

That is a very dangerous position for someone with a 'young mind' to adopt.

Why? When did being open minded and willing to try to see the other side of the coin become a bad thing? I am not advocating moral anarchy, nor am I saying it is time to throw open the doors of the criminal psyche ward and let the depraved run free. I do not advocate letting those who wish us as individuals or as a group harm. However, I am not willing to discard someone else's view just because is does not agree with mine. I will consider as much of your point of view as I can (you in general, not you specific, amicus. Just wanted to clarify a noun that could be seen as ambiguous.) and make a decision based on what I think and feel. I can pretty much guarantee that the life experiences of a bi sexual girl from the middle east who fled from a life that was not her own, even though she was the one who had to live it, ARE going it be light years apart from a middle aged (or however old you are) heterosexual male who grew up in the west. Like it or not, I simply cannot assess life on the same terms as you because our experiences are so different. But I am willing to try. This is why I say we need to keep and open mind and try to see things from someone else's point of view. Otherwise, all this dialogue, with precise literal definitions of the words, is meaningless.




"One's vision of right and wrong....are subjective..."

I could not disagree more. There is an objective reality and an objective moral code that determines right and wrong, good and bad.

Disagreeing is fine. I enjoy a good debate. Being condescending and denigrating my "young mind" because you perceive a disagreement with me is annoying. Would that wisdom came neatly packaged in little pills to be taken every morning with your oj. Sadly, it does not work like that. Wisdom comes with experience, and my experience tells me to do the best I can. Yes, I used perceive on purpose. I do not see that we disagree on the importance of precise language. I do see that my lack of facility with this language may be inhibiting discussion, because we do not appear to be understanding each other well. Or maybe it is just lack of sleep. Being open minded means that I as gain in experience, my world views will change. Lack of experience does not denote lack of intelligence.


Of course, it is much easier to think otherwise and wallow in subjectivity.

I am not wallowing; I am saying that I am unwilling to cast aside another's opinion or experience just because they are not mine.

You are now free to travel the world.

ciao

amicus...

Very sorry, I already did that without your permissions. It has been and interesting ride so far and I am sure my "young mind" will continue to evolve and learn. I hope that I have not become totally hidebound and inflexible at the ripe old age of 23.

Hope the new year is good to you, too.

Um, I just realized we are hijacking badly here, sorry Kassiana. So if anyone wants further debate, please lets take it to PM or lets start another thread, so this can go back to it's very good original topic.

I am off to bed cause it is late here.. Or early, depending on your point of view. I hope I am still making sense. If I am not, will try to clarify after sleep and coffee..

 

[CharleyH]

hm. These days I think stright means vanilla. Being quite of age, the younger crowd (rowr) is much more experimental than the older, except here of course. Straight though? Ya vanilla - non willing, non consent um want to say it won't.

Most people, even the most gayest of gals and guys have at least had some sort of . . .

Straight, not vanilla, and yet straight is to be conventional. Who really WANTS to be with straight unless they can turn to a variety of anythings

My absurd take

 

[Evil Alpaca]

youd still be crooked
but id still love ya

You mean that in a platonic sense, don't you?

 

[BlackShanglan]

You mean that in a platonic sense, don't you?

You never know, she might be quadrupedisexual. I'm still holding out a hope for it.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Liar said, seconded by English

Why does my sexuality have to be decided by who I would let massage my genitals? Sure, if you think of sexuality as something purely mechanical, then yes, stimulation by touch is a pretty gender independant thing. I let a bloke fondle my balls on a regular basis: me.

It is my belief that sexuality sits in the head, that sex does not equal putting things in holes, but that the word derived from 'sex' as in gender. What ideas and prospects sets the heart and hormones in motion? It's not who do you fuck. It's who do you love. 'Love', again an imperfect verb that covers too many variations. but you know what kind of love i mean. The kind that you fall in.

You don't quote me, but your opposition of mechanics and love is naive. "What ideas and prospects sets[sic] the heart and hormones in motion?

What sets the heart and hormones going, is, in part, the history of such events, *including the physiological response component.* If it's always been blondes that got you going, that may set the pattern. Then there is fresh learning. What's it like to be with someone on X (other) race? Once there's that new experience, then a new race of partner might be preferred.

While sexuality is orchestrated by the brain, the gonads play a key, causative role (eg, production of testosterone). Where their pulsings lead, often the heart follows. I'm simply referring to the 'hard wired' component of sexual response, not denying a role for romantic poetry and 'ideas.'

Similarly the stomach plays a key role--along with blood sugar-- in one's eating behavior, though I don't *reduce* human episodes around meals--dining activities and gourmet cooking-- to simply stomach filling. Ideas play a role. But ideas don't just float above in a heavenly 'romantic' sphere. The empty stomach, where the blood sugar is low, begs for attention. The food that formerly attracted you--say swordfish--creates only anxiety, after you've been food poisoned with it (real life example). If you fill the stomach with water or eat a head of lettuce, your 'hunger' is diminished in a purely mechanical fashion. The glucose IV drip is even more effective.

And so I repeat, although several posters claim "never," I maintain that given a training or situation where the responses are triggered (as it were, mechanically) AND where the ideas are controlled, most persons can end up responding to a variety of persons and objects not on their usual list of (possible partners).
Not on their list at 14 or 24, either.

FURTHER, the 'ideas' romance and 'love' are likely to follow that lead (and in turn) shape the sociosexual behavior). I don't deny than you can pine your life away on some type who's unattainable (the ultimate 'blonde animal'), but most persons have a pattern of 'falling in love' that's in accordance with their history of positive sexual responses.

 

[Guest]

You never know, she might be quadrupedisexual. I'm still holding out a hope for it.

Shanglan

wouldnt that be panquadrupedisexual?

 

[amicus]

My dear Cbutton...apology tendered if required, I did not intend to condescend or denigrate and your use of language is superb.


"...I have a young mind that does not speak english as a first language.. Also, have a Webster's 25Th unabridged college dictionary that is bigger than the Gutenberg Bible. giggling at the thought of amicus and I, drawing dictionaries at 20 paces...."

It was that statement of yours about a young mind to which I referred and nothing more.

It is a pleasure making your acquaintance, I hope we shall meet again and if you have not been previously welcomed to the Author's Hangout Forum, then consider the deed done. Welcome!

I have a friend in Hong Kong and one near Manila, but neither quite as verbose as you.

Take care.

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

wouldnt that be panquadrupedisexual?

Ooooh, ARE you?

Shanglan

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I hate everyone equally, does that count?

 

[amicus]

Abstruse...you remind me of an old Kingston Trio song...a few of the lyrics I recall...."They are rioting in Africa, there is strife in Iran, " and somewhere in the song, "and we don't like anyone very much..."

So its new years eve and late....so sue me...


amicus...

 

[Kassiana]

To further expand on my previous objection...

Oh, yes. Hijackers may continue. I don't mind if my topic spurs other debates.

Now. To further expand, if SNP was right, there'd be no gay people. There is no society with a majority of gay people. In fact, even in highly gay-negative societies like the United States in general, there are significant numbers of gay people. If SNP's theory held, gay people could be and would be converted to hetero before they even grew up. Many gay people in gay-negative societies do believe their sexual preference is wrong and do try hard to change, spending countless years and dollars on programs, prayer, and therapy to change. They don't. Thus, something about their sexuality must be hard-wired.

If you have evidence to the contrary, of course I'd love to see it, SNP. Until then, however, I must reject your theory that anyone can be socialized into any sexuality they or you desire them to have.

I'm straight but not narrow works for me, too.

 

[Belegon]

Just adding to this briefly to say I liked what Liar had to say. I have an affinity for women, not only as sexual partners but as friends; I also have just a great love of people who interest me and inspire me, regardless of gender. That was why I said I could not rule out the possibility of a same sex experience. I also like the elongated hourglass idea that Colly endorsed.

as Romeo Void said,

"So let's never say never..."

 

[NoJo]

I remember a m/f group sex session I was caught up in many years ago. I could have learned a lot about my sexuality then, but unfortunately they had a pinball machine in the room that was giving out free games.

 

[gauchecritic]

As much as I'd like to bring up some points that mi amico has postuered (I love making making new words up) about absolutes (everything else is real and you don't affect it) or monogamy is the natural state (with all the inhibitions that brings being a 'good' thing) there is something much more important about the question that hasn't been raised so far.

This actually applies to so many things. It doesn't matter

The human race could not care less about the activities of individual members of the species, in fact, the more outrageous the activities, the better. Which means simply having each individual (hard wired) into being sexual creatures. While ever there are enough of them (which takes into account natural disaster) then the species will only survive if they are as broadly spread across the sexual spectrum as possible.

Sexual activity leads to procreation (in the right combination) if the majority of the species are doing it the 'right' way then the race continues and evolves.

The more partners there are, the better as far as the species is concerned. Being that this biological imperative has to cover a race of thousands of millions then naturally some of the imperative will give a losing result. (gay or non-creative sex)

And while this abherrant behaviour (not conducive to procreation) is apparent it comes as a result of the biological imperative, that is; to be sexually attractive/attracted to or by as many different people as possible.

Sexuality is determined by chromosomes. Neither male nor female can exist without including chromosomes of the opposite sex. If we are all male and female then there can be no surprises when some are attracted, by a biological imperative (sexuality), to the same sex.

 

[Pure]

not sure what this means, gauche

Neither male nor female can exist without including chromosomes of the opposite sex.

though i suppose it doesn't matter.

 

[Pure]

most endorsed option:

There are straight people, gay people, and bi people.

is it evidence of deep insight, in a sage's words "everything is what it is, and is not something else."

or evidence of the last 150 years of 'sexology' talk. surely for most of human history-- including most of the great writers, scientists and philosophers-- such an opinion was never (to my knowledge) voiced. have a look at Plato, for example.

 

[BlackShanglan]

most endorsed option:

There are straight people, gay people, and bi people.

is it evidence of deep insight, in a sage's words "everything is what it is, and is not something else."

or evidence of the last 150 years of 'sexology' talk. surely for most of human history-- including most of the great writers, scientists and philosophers-- such an opinion was never (to my knowledge) voiced. have a look at Plato, for example.

Hmmm. To be fair, for most of human history, those categories - gay, straight, bi - did not exist. There's quite a lot of literary evidence, at least, that people have been aware of varying sexual urges for a very long time. Was it Tacitus who said that Alexander was never conquered, except by Hephaistion's thighs? And I've always loved the story in the Decameron where the husband finds his wife sleeping with a young man, she snaps at him that he shouldn't have gotten married anyway if he only wanted to follow the "dry path," and in the end they decide to share the boy once they fetch him out from his hiding place under the hen coop. In fact, if one recalls correctly, Plato's Republic begins with a discussion as to whether they should go give offerings to the gods, sit in and talk philosophy, or go down to the market and find some young boys.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

not sure what this means, gauche

Neither male nor female can exist without including chromosomes of the opposite sex.

though i suppose it doesn't matter.

erm... X's and Y's ?

ahh.. If women were parthogenic they would only have girls?

um.. Sperm give the option of sex not eggs?

Can't think of any other way to put it.