Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying genetics don't play some part in what I am. It's semi-applicable, not 100 percent applicable. I wasn't "born that way" in the sense that my sexuality was concretely bound to be this or that. So yes, I might have been partially "born that way" but I was also partially "made that way." I don't want to be labeled exclusively "born that way." I feel wrong labeling myself that way when I can go back and identify several factors that edged me in one direction or another. I'm only saying I'm not ONLY that.

 

Part of the thing about the gay rights movement that has always bothered me is even if you agree with equal rights, if you slightly differ from the general opinion (such as me not completely subscribing to exclusively the born that way theory for everyone) people seem to think that's not okay. (Not talking about you at all, just edging this back towards the topic.) A lot of people will jump on you if you don't follow the set pattern to a T.

Ah, sorry. I was more saying to me, I'd think you were "born that way" because you were born with the potential for shifting sexuality, just like others are born with a very fixed one.

 

But if you don't want the "born that way" label, that's totally up to you. My personal take on the matter doesn't have any bearing on how you label yourself, after all. It's just how my brain sorts things, and what matters is how YOU see yourself, not how my brain tries to group things.

 

 

But I notice that with a few other movements, as well. Ugh, the crazy feminists who scream about you undermining the movement if you cook or like pink. sleep.gif' But I understand what you're saying. Honestly, though, I think it's silly. So long as you support them having equal treatment, what does it matter what you think caused their sexuality?

Share this post


Link to post

Check the funding -- and the credentials of the writers.

 

"Funding: This research was funded by the American Institutes of Bisexuality (http://www.bisexual.org/home.html) and the United States Department of Agruculture's Federal Formula Funds (http://cuaes.cornell.edu/support/index.c​fm) given to Cornell University for project NYC-321421. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

 

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

 

Is there something wrong with the AIoB? Also, it doesn't always work out that the organizations who funded the research get the results that they want e.g. the Koch brothers and global warming.

 

I don't know what your concerns are about their credentials. They all have Ph.D's.

 

"Baumeister's theory of female erotic plasticity is supported by a significant body of data suggesting that female sexuality is more malleable and more greatly influenced by cultural and contextual factors than male sexuality. " -- Benuto

 

That was written by someone who gave criticism to the plasticity hypothesis. Can you provide proof that it's just culture?

 

How much of the population do you think would identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 

Well if they SAY no competing interests exist...SURELY they're being honest.

 

Is there something wrong with the AIoB?

 

They're very vocal about shopping for researchers who will give them the results they want. A few years ago there was a thing about them trying to tie bisexuality with a lower chance to get breast cancer.

 

Also, it doesn't always work out that the organizations who funded the research get the results that they want e.g. the Koch brothers and global warming.

 

And if they don't like it, they don't publicise it, or disavow the payments.

 

I don't know what your concerns are about their credentials. They all have Ph.D's.

 

So does Dr. Phil.

 

Can you provide proof that it's just culture?

 

"Women and the Kinsey Scale, How Social Pressure Effects Female Sexuality," Milhausen, R.R.; Desmarais, S, 2010.

 

Rosenthal, Martha (2012). Human Sexuality: From Cells to Society

 

How much of the population do you think would identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

 

Privately or publicly?

Share this post


Link to post

So does Dr. Phil.

 

He's not in academia, though. He's a television host.

 

"Women and the Kinsey Scale, How Social Pressure Effects Female Sexuality,"  Milhausen, R.R.; Desmarais, S, 2010.

 

Rosenthal, Martha (2012). Human Sexuality: From Cells to Society

 

I found this in the second one. tongue.gif

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=d58z5hgQ2...5G4qykgStu4CIDg

 

user posted image

 

Privately or publicly?

 

Both

Share this post


Link to post

If anyone has a facebook and likes to do a little debating on pictures, I thought I'd bring up this beautiful picture right here. I'm trying my best to hold against the guy who's trying to flood the comments with hate, and for the most part I think I've wrestled him into a corner, but anyone's welcome to join in me refuting his argument.

 

If not, then you can just appreciate the lovely picture c:

Share this post


Link to post
If not, then you can just appreciate the lovely picture c:

I can't appreciate it, as that's two more attractive females I have no chance with sad.gif

 

In seriousness, it's as lovely as any and every other wedding photo.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting bit of news from the UK here. See the BBC report. It would seem that a group of Conservatives (for those not in the know that's the most 'right wing' of the 3 major parties) have written an open letter (published in the Telegraph) in support not only of Gay Marriage recognised by the State, but also of allowing churches to marry gay couples if they wish. They make the point that allowing churches *not* to marry gay couples, while completely the right thing to do, should only be allowed as religious freedom if churches are also given liberty *to* marry gay couples if they wish. It's interesting to note that one of the people backing this is Catholic - and I applaud the man standing up both for his beliefs (not forcing the Catholic church to marry gays) *and* seperation of church and state (not allowing a religious opinion on the matter to influence state-grated rights).

 

Personally I think this is great. I do not, and never have, thought churches should be forced to go against their beliefs by the State - so allowing churches to make the choice over wether they perform gay marriage ceremonies or not seems to me to be absolutely the fairest thing to do. Let's hope they *do* change the law (and with cross-party backing it's probably a shoe-in). Faith in humanity = somewhat restored.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting bit of news from the UK here. See the BBC report. It would seem that a group of Conservatives (for those not in the know that's the most 'right wing' of the 3 major parties) have written an open letter (published in the Telegraph) in support not only of Gay Marriage recognised by the State, but also of allowing churches to marry gay couples if they wish. They make the point that allowing churches *not* to marry gay couples, while completely the right thing to do, should only be allowed as religious freedom if churches are also given liberty *to* marry gay couples if they wish. It's interesting to note that one of the people backing this is Catholic - and I applaud the man standing up both for his beliefs (not forcing the Catholic church to marry gays) *and* seperation of church and state (not allowing a religious opinion on the matter to influence state-grated rights).

 

Personally I think this is great. I do not, and never have, thought churches should be forced to go against their beliefs by the State - so allowing churches to make the choice over wether they perform gay marriage ceremonies or not seems to me to be absolutely the fairest thing to do. Let's hope they *do* change the law (and with cross-party backing it's probably a shoe-in). Faith in humanity = somewhat restored.

Now if only this could happen in the US

Share this post


Link to post

He's not in academia, though. He's a television host.

 

He, however, presents himself as an authority.

 

I found this in the second one.  

 

Read the entire book and get back too me. I'm not saying sexual fluidity doesn't exist. Bisexuality does exist. I'm saying it's no more common in women than it is in men. My entire point is on the "double validation," -- women are pressured not to "invalidate" their prior relationships

 

A good example is an 83 year-old woman I know. She was married during WWII, because that's what girls did, was never in love with her husband, never physically attracted to him, never orgasmed during sex -- but any time she tries to identify as a lesbian, everyone always says "Oh, you're a lesbian now."

 

As opposed to a 50 year old man, who married because he should, and later divorces her and fell in love with a man.

 

There's this double-standard, that women who are involved with men in the past can't have been gay in the past, while men who were involved with women must have been gay from the beginning and everyone "missed all the signs."

 

Both

 

Impossible to guess. No one even knows where to start, or how to define when one is gay.

Edited by NobleOwl

Share this post


Link to post

He, however, presents himself as an authority.

 

A more fitting example would be Roy Spencer, but you need to explain why the book you have put forth is citing Bailey, Savin-Williams, Chivers, and Diamond....

 

It's always the other side with the preconceived notions. What do you think of the Orch-OR hypothesis?

 

Read the entire book and get back too me. I'm not saying sexual fluidity doesn't exist. Bisexuality does exist. I'm saying it's no more common in women than it is in men.

 

I'd have to buy it to take a look at the whole book. You seem already familiar with it. You could just show me where the book specifically states that there's evidence that it's a cultural phenomenon.

 

The book also has a page or two on erotic plasticity, but I can't read it. I'm sure it goes into how females differ.

 

Did you read the paragraphs on the topic of sexual fluidity where it basically was suggesting that women are more fluid than men? Like this? "Women become attracted to those they love, and men fall in love with those they are sexually attracted to. Sexuality science supports this axiom."

 

Did you read the topic of bisexuality?

 

"Many feel that bisexuality is more common in women than in men, and that women are more "fluid" in their sexuality (Baily, Pillard, Neale & Agyei, 1993; Chandra, Mosher, Copen, & Sionean, 2011; Diamond, 2009; Kinnish, Straussberg & Turner, 2005; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels 1994) A recent national survey found that nearly 3 times as many women as men reported having same-sex partners in the past 12 months (Chandra et. al 2011). Meredith Chivers and colleagues (2004) found that women -- regardless of their sexual orientation -- experienced strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. In fact, many women who do not identify themselves as bisexual have same-sex fantasies or attractions"

 

My entire point is on the "double validation," -- women are pressured not to "invalidate" their prior relationships

 

A good example is an 83 year-old woman I know. She was married during WWII, because that's what girls did, was never in love with her husband, never physically attracted to him, never orgasmed during sex -- but any time she tries to identify as a lesbian, everyone always says "Oh, you're a lesbian now."

 

As opposed to a 50 year old man, who married because he should, and later divorces her and fell in love with a man.

 

There's this double-standard, that women who are involved with men in the past can't have been gay in the past, while men who were involved with women must have been gay from the beginning and everyone "missed all the signs."

 

Well, men are more likely to identify as being gay than bisexual relative to women, and studies seem to suggest that women are significantly more likely to alter their sexual activities later in life.

 

Do you think men are discriminated less on opening up about these things?

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-...ntify-lgbt.aspx

 

"Consistent with other recent studies and with the gender gap identified earlier in this report, younger women are more likely to identify as LGBT than are younger men. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 8.3% of women identify as LGBT, compared with 4.6% of men the same age."

 

That's interesting. And if same-sex activities are included, the survey can show a 3:1 difference.

 

Impossible to guess. No one even knows where to start, or how to define when one is gay.

 

I could have sworn you said before that 10% of the population was gay.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Women become attracted to those they love, and men fall in love with those they are sexually attracted to."

Women very commonly find people physically attractive, even if those are people whose personalities they'd never find desirable, and do so no less often than men.

I think there even was another research done which proved just that...

 

 

And truly, it is somewhat easier for a woman to pretend she is something else as far as sexuality goes, so if society tells her that being bisexual is 'cool', she might try to act on it. It is in cases very hard to accurately 'prove' whether someone is telling something to seem 'in' or whether one truly is what one says.

 

(Also, that test which measured arousal from eye-dilation? There are *many* things which determine how dilated your pupil is, beginning from light conditions (obviously!) to emotions other than arousal, some of which are outright negative and contradict with the notion of arousal. Oh, and by just scanning the paper, I did not find any proof of them using a valid method to prove that the subject was not thinking of anything else. In the end, the test might only have proven that women are better at thinking of things other than what is in front of them, or alternatively less likely to keep full focus on things which do not interest them...)

Share this post


Link to post

Women very commonly find people physically attractive, even if those are people whose personalities they'd never find desirable, and do so no less often than men.

I think there even was another research done which proved just that...

 

And truly, it is somewhat easier for a woman to pretend she is something else as far as sexuality goes, so if society tells her that being bisexual is 'cool', she might try to act on it. It is in cases very hard to accurately 'prove' whether someone is telling something to seem 'in' or whether one truly is what one says.

 

Didn't quote enough, so it kind of clouded the context. It was saying essentially that love and sexual desire were independent, so a woman may be sexually oriented to men, but could still fall in love with a woman.

 

(Also, that test which measured arousal from eye-dilation? There are *many* things which determine how dilated your pupil is, beginning from light conditions (obviously!) to emotions other than arousal, some of which are outright negative and contradict with the notion of arousal. Oh, and by just scanning the paper, I did not find any proof of them using a valid method to prove that the subject was not thinking of anything else. In the end, the test might only have proven that women are better at thinking of things other than what is in front of them, or alternatively less likely to keep full focus on things which do not interest them...)

 

*shrugs* They done it another way and have used transsexuals to see if it's consistent. The arousal studies may have little to do with it, but it's just one of the many lines of reasoning to try to explain the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
It was saying essentially that love and sexual desire were independent, so a woman may be sexually oriented to men, but could still fall in love with a woman.

How is 'love' defined in this context?

 

(Since 'love' does not necessarily equal the desire to engage in any kind of physical activities, or that physical kind of relationship with the person - or even the mere thought of it - is not highly disturbing.)

Share this post


Link to post

Just a bit of theorizing, but I'm wondering if the "women are more likely to be bi/women's sexuality is more fluid" is maybe partly a result of women's bodies being more sexualized in media and advertising and like everywhere. That's kinda what it feels like to me.

Share this post


Link to post

A more fitting example would be Roy Spencer, but you need to explain why the book you have put forth is citing Bailey, Savin-Williams, Chivers, and Diamond....

 

Good books cite the science of both sides, Alpha.

 

Orch-OR hypothesis

 

What are you calling the Orch-OR hypothesis?

 

I'd have to buy it to take a look at the whole book. You seem already familiar with it. You could just show me where the book specifically states that there's evidence that it's a cultural phenomenon.

 

And enable the google-style of research? I don't think so.

 

I have read it, but I was addressing the idea that culture makes bisexuality more a) necessary and cool.gif acceptable than in men. I was toouching on the society bits, not the views of the women themselves.

 

It's the Kinsey scale all over again. Most people are more "fluid" than orientation suggests, but society makes it more OKAY for women to be "fluid" and forces the "fluid" label on them more.

 

Do you think men are discriminated less on opening up about these things?

 

I believe that's a lot of what I've been saying.

 

I could have sworn you said before that 10% of the population was gay.

 

No. I may have said it's believed or estimated that 10% of the population is gay. Frankly, depending on how you define "gay" I'd say all but 2% are on the spectrum.

 

Just a bit of theorizing, but I'm wondering if the "women are more likely to be bi/women's sexuality is more fluid" is maybe partly a result of women's bodies being more sexualized in media and advertising and like everywhere. That's kinda what it feels like to me.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post

(Since 'love' does not necessarily equal the desire to engage in any kind of physical activities, or that physical kind of relationship with the person - or even the mere thought of it - is not highly disturbing.)

 

Even two asexuals will have sex.

 

Good books cite the science of both sides, Alpha.

 

There's a problem if the sections on bisexuality and sexual fluidity in that book leaves you thinking that there are innate differences between men and women. I didn't see any alternative, so it appears mainstream.

 

What are you calling the Orch-OR hypothesis?

 

Remember Paola Zizzi's "Big Wow" theory? It's based on the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model.

 

I saw a presentation by Hameroff, and when he was taking questions, Lawrence Krauss hit the nail on the head: "From a physics perspective, everything you've just said is nonsense".

 

You'll take that seriously. Why not the researchers I have cited?

 

And enable the google-style of research? I don't think so.

 

tongue.gif

 

"Interesting! Thanks for the heads-up. As I said, I'm not aware of any published research demonstrating male sexual fluidity--but if there's some new work in the pipeline showing it exists, I would love to see it. That would fundamentally change a lot of our current theories about sexuality..." -- Justin J. Lehmiller, Harvard Social Psychologist August, 2012

 

"Also, there’s no evidence that the research I’ve cited has been “distorted” or was politically motivated, so that’s not a productive discussion to have.

[...]

In closing, let me say that the evidence that women have a more flexible sexuality than men is compelling and cannot simply be dismissed by saying it’s a myth or that the researchers were biased or seeking personal fame and glory. " -- Lehmiller

 

I have read it, but I was addressing the idea that culture makes bisexuality more a) necessary and cool.gif acceptable than in men. I was toouching on the society bits, not the views of the women themselves.

 

It's the Kinsey scale all over again. Most people are more "fluid" than orientation suggests, but society makes it more OKAY for women to be "fluid" and forces the "fluid" label on them more.

 

Okay. I'm arguing that it's not necessarily all due to culture. There might be differences between the sexes that might make women more flexible. The field needs more research to hammer it out more clearly.

 

I believe that's a lot of what I've been saying.

 

Really? You said society makes being bisexual as a woman more acceptable, and I would guess lesbians get treated better than gay men. The women are wonderful effect and all.

 

Just a bit of theorizing, but I'm wondering if the "women are more likely to be bi/women's sexuality is more fluid" is maybe partly a result of women's bodies being more sexualized in media and advertising and like everywhere. That's kinda what it feels like to me.

 

Thank you!

 

Women disagree on which men look attractive. Men agree on which women look attractive.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a problem if the sections on bisexuality and sexual fluidity in that book leaves you thinking that there are innate differences between men and women. I didn't see any alternative, so it appears mainstream.

 

You can read part of any book and think it's holding a different opinion, because you're only reading parts f it. Again, google style searching.

 

Remember Paola Zizzi's "Big Wow" theory? It's based on the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model.

 

Having similar but different science does not mean "based on."

 

I saw a presentation by Hameroff, and when he was taking questions, Lawrence Krauss hit the nail on the head: "From a physics perspective, everything you've just said is nonsense".

 

And where did you study physics, Alpha? Lawrence Krauss is all about money for his "Origins Project" and his books -- including one that fundamentally disagrees with the Big Wow Theory. If he could disprove it, he would do it in peer review. He hasn't.

 

You'll take that seriously. Why not the researchers I have cited?

 

Because other research disagrees.

 

"Interesting! Thanks for the heads-up. As I said, I'm not aware of any published research demonstrating male sexual fluidity--but if there's some new work in the pipeline showing it exists, I would love to see it. That would fundamentally change a lot of our current theories about sexuality..." -- Justin J. Lehmiller, Harvard Social Psychologist August, 2012

 

"Sexual fluidity in the human male is no different than the sexual fluidity in the human female. The latter only appears more common because of western socio-cultural norms, and inaccurate terminology."

 

The Myth of Sexual Fluidity, Gender-Typing and Sexual Orientation, Bailey J.M., Zucker K.J. (2002)

 

In closing, let me say that the evidence that women have a more flexible sexuality than men is compelling and cannot simply be dismissed by saying it’s a myth or that the researchers were biased or seeking personal fame and glory. " -- Lehmiller

 

 

"Women have more societal pressure placed on them not to invalidate prior relationships. There is a status to be attained in having only been with women in the LGBT community because of this social pressure. Whereas men will be accepted if they say they have finally found their orientation, women in the same situation and with the same lack of fulfillment will without hesitation be labeled as bisexual and treated as lesser." Dean, Laura, Ilan H. Meyer. "Fighting the Spectrum, Orientation and Labels." Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (2001)

 

I would guess lesbians get treated better than gay men. The women are wonderful effect and all.

 

Sexual hate crimes such as corrective rape, are more likely to be carried out on women. - Bartle, EE (2000). "Lesbians And Hate Crimes" Journal of Poverty; Mieses, Alexa. "Gender Inequality and Corrective Rape of Women Who Have Sex with Women." GMHC Treatment Issues (2009)

 

Women are more likely to be tortured due to their sexual orientation, and die during the commission of a hate crime than men.- Hawthorne, Susan. "Ancient Hatred And Its Contemporary Manifestation: The Torture Of Lesbians." Journal Of Hate Studies

 

Violence against lesbians is more common than violence against gay men in Canada. -- Janoff, Douglas, Pink Blood: Homophobic Violence in Canada

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Even two asexuals will have sex.

They can, but nevertheless very definition of 'asexual' insists that they lack a drive to do so, so it is fairly unlikely they will do it (unless it is specifically for getting pregnant only). An asexual member of this site might be able to explain it better, but as far as I understand, even if they deeply love the other person, they still will not want to engage in sex.

 

 

Women disagree on which men look attractive. Men agree on which women look attractive.

False. There is quite clear variety of preferences amongst men in women, beginning from which weight-category is liked. which body-type is preferable, which eye and hair-colors look good, etc, etc.

(Hey, and the 'female beauty standard' has varied immensely throughout history and by region!)

Share this post


Link to post

You can read part of any book and think it's holding a different opinion, because you're only reading parts f it. Again, google style searching.

 

If it mentions how culture affects womens' sexuality, that is not in disagreement of what the others are saying.

 

Besides, if there was such a consensus on this for you to think there's proof, why would you put bad science (as you called it) in whole topics? That's like taking Roy Spencer's work on heat escaping the atmosphere and putting it in the climate textbooks as if it were fact before others had corrected his mess.

 

Having similar but different science does not mean "based on."

 

Did she work this out independently before knowing about their work? The striking feature of her theory is that it's consistent with their model. If Orch-OR is wrong, then what are the chances that she is on the right track?

 

And where did you study physics, Alpha? Lawrence Krauss is all about money for his "Origins Project" and his books -- including one that fundamentally disagrees with the Big Wow Theory. If he could disprove it, he would do it in peer review. He hasn't.

 

Are you suggesting that it's mainstream? There's many criticisms on it. The guy thinks platonic values are embedded within the universe, associates with Deepok Chopra, and believes memories are in microtubules.

 

Someone needs to put out the scientific findings in layman terms. Penrose has written several books, and if Krauss was all about money, the quantum mysticism is much more of a gold mine.

 

Because other research disagrees.

 

Okay. What about free will? You've argued for it, yet it seems like most neuroscientists don't believe it. I've seen Sam Harris and another person claim that.

 

"Sexual fluidity in the human male is no different than the sexual fluidity in the human female. The latter only appears more common because of western socio-cultural norms, and inaccurate terminology."

 

The Myth of Sexual Fluidity, Gender-Typing and Sexual Orientation,  Bailey J.M., Zucker K.J. (2002)

 

That's interesting because Bailey is there, yet he has said this in I think 2004, and all the recent stuff doesn't seem to indicate that he believes they're the same:

 

“We found that women’s sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men’s, and it’s more changeable over time,” says the study’s senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. “These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men’s and women’s brains.”

 

"Women have more societal pressure placed on them not to invalidate prior relationships. There is a status to be attained in having only been with women in the LGBT community because of this social pressure. Whereas men will be accepted if they say they have finally found their orientation, women in the same situation and with the same lack of fulfillment will without hesitation be labeled as bisexual and treated as lesser." Dean, Laura, Ilan H. Meyer. "Fighting the Spectrum, Orientation and Labels." Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (2001)

 

How many of them were rejected?

 

Sexual hate crimes such as corrective rape, are more likely to be carried out on women. - Bartle, EE (2000). "Lesbians And Hate Crimes" Journal of Poverty; Mieses, Alexa. "Gender Inequality and Corrective Rape of Women Who Have Sex with Women." GMHC Treatment Issues (2009)

 

That's obvious.

 

Women are more likely to be tortured due to their sexual orientation, and die during the commission of a hate crime than men.- Hawthorne, Susan. "Ancient Hatred And Its Contemporary Manifestation: The Torture Of Lesbians." Journal Of Hate Studies

 

Violence against lesbians is more common than violence against gay men in Canada. --  Janoff, Douglas, Pink Blood: Homophobic Violence in Canada

 

It sounds like a pissing match.

 

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hate_bib.html

 

"[...] collected from 2259 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (total N = 1170 females, 1089 males) in the Sacramento (CA) area. Approximately one-fifth of females and one-fourth of males had experienced a bias-related criminal victimization since age 16; one-eighth of females and one-sixth of males had experienced a bias crime recently (in the previous 5 years). "

 

"Gay men were significantly more likely than lesbians or bisexuals to experience violence or property crimes. More than one third of gay men (37.6%) reported experiencing one or both types of crimes, compared to 12.5% of lesbians, 10.7% of bisexual men, and 12.7% of bisexual women. Gay men also reported higher levels of harassment and verbal abuse than the other sexual orientation groups. Employment and housing discrimination were significantly more likely among gay men and lesbians (reported by 17.7% and 16.3%, respectively) than among bisexual men and women (3.7% and 6.8%, respectively). "

 

http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/bias_y.htm

 

They can, but nevertheless very definition of 'asexual' insists that they lack a drive to do so, so it is fairly unlikely they will do it (unless it is specifically for getting pregnant only). An asexual member of this site might be able to explain it better, but as far as I understand, even if they deeply love the other person, they still will not want to engage in sex.

 

Asexuals fight over this all the time. There's many reasons why they would wind up having sex.

 

False. There is quite clear variety of preferences amongst men in women, beginning from which weight-category is liked. which body-type is preferable, which eye and hair-colors look good, etc, etc.

(Hey, and the 'female beauty standard' has varied immensely throughout history and by region!)

 

What about their preferences in height? Females find masculine and feminine features attractive, so there's more variety.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-c...ersally-defined

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
What about their preferences in height? Females find masculine and feminine features attractive, so there's more variety.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-c...ersally-defined

There, however, are also certain qualities which seem to be commonly preferable in men - take a look at male models; very little actual variety to speak of.

(And then there are some traits which are seen more good-looking in both men and women, such as body-symmetry).

 

Height... Well, generally both females and males are somewhat biased as far as height goes - generally, there are few men who say that they like if a woman is much taller than him, but too short is not desirable either, and few women who will say that they like if a man is much shorter than her, though too tall is not desirable either. (Whereas both can and do still fall in love with and feel physical attraction towards people who are outside the preferred height-group.)

Share this post


Link to post

They can, but nevertheless very definition of 'asexual' insists that they lack a drive to do so, so it is fairly unlikely they will do it (unless it is specifically for getting pregnant only). An asexual member of this site might be able to explain it better, but as far as I understand, even if they deeply love the other person, they still will not want to engage in sex.

Ace here! It's not that I don't want it as in I actively don't want it. It's that I just have no inherent desire for it. No inherent sexual attraction to other people. Sex can be used for more things, so in the event I was in a relationship with a sexual person I would be open to the idea, but not that I seriously desired it for myself because I'm not sexually attracted to others.

 

Think of it like this. You and your SO are going out to eat. Your SO has this place they LOVE. You, on the other hand, are entirely neutral towards it. You don't like it, but you don't hate it. It's one of those places where you wouldn't really go on your own because you generally prefer to eat at home, but to make your SO happy you're okay with going out to eat there because you want them to be happy and it's not like you hate the place.

 

Some asexuals, though, actively dislike the idea of sex. Some are sexually repulsed, others just can't get turned on by other people. Asexuality is actually a spectrum, really. Some asexuals, often referred to as "gray-aseuxals" are people who do experience sexual attraction but only very rarely. Demisexuality, only being able to be sexually attracted to a person after forming a strong emotional bond with them, is also often classified as a form of asexuality since they're not able to be sexually attracted to other people who they don't know.

 

I obviously can't speak for every asexual, though, since just like sexuals we're all different.

 

 

Asexuals fight over this all the time. There's many reasons why they would wind up having sex.

However, just because we can and we might does not mean that we will eventually have sex. We might end up having sex--not we would end up having sex.

 

Putting two asexuals in a relationships means it is very unlikely they would have sex due to sexual attraction.

 

I will concede that it's possible to have sex, and obtain physical pleasure from it, even if there's no sexual attraction. And that sexual release is not the only reason for engaging in sexual activity.

 

Seriously, though. Put two sexually repulsed asexuals in a relationship, and neither of them ever wants kids, and I'd say the odds of them having sex are pretty slim. Not impossible, of course, but not exactly something I'd bet on.

Share this post


Link to post

I gotta run, but before I do I think this article is relevant.

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/...4328803222.html

 

*Shivers* Just... ug.

 

Some of those comments are horrible. Particularity the one about "Gay people only want children as pets." That's just plain disgusting.

 

From what I've read, Hollande is determined to follow through with the bill/law though, which is good.

 

Gotta go.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

Well good on France. Although I will observe that the 'pet' comment at least shouldn't be taken to seriously - the guy that made it comes from a party that has had the 'fascist' label thrown at it a few times.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with TikindiDragon on the article, however I have something to contribute to the disscussion on sexual fluidity.

 

There are some men and women who while not being gay themselves will engage in intimate actions with people of the same sex, and not just as an expirament. Most humans aren't in a hard core, straight, gay, bi, asexual and pansexual camps. Just like there are humans who don't like having just one partner and may find ways to allow themselves to be faithful while persuing their other 'need'.

 

There is some sexual fludity, there has been more seen in women but whether its a cultural phenomnea and/or women are more likely to speak out or that's just the way things are has not yet been truely solved.

Share this post


Link to post

There's also an increased group of women who identify as lesbians simply because of their scarring pasts with men that prevent them from getting emotionally and physically close to men whatsoever. My mom has encountered a few of them, and they mostly have the idea that lesbians simply exist because they were somehow hurt or traumatized by men in their past.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.