Sexual Orientation Poll 2014

[Trixsie Vixen]

Yes, orientation here really means not who you're attracted to based on gender, but who you might be attracted to due to other things which have not be excluded by gender.


It doesn't exclude all the other factors, it's just not measuring them with the concept of orientation.


I think you might be trying to make orientation something which no one claims it to be Kaiyo.


As for evolutionary perspectives, there is plenty of data to show genetic impact on sexual orientation, but not to claim that being gay is adaptive, rather it is an epigenetic phenomenon.  A side effect of being generated by the same genes which do other adaptive things.

[White Wolf Guardian]

My only opinion on the identities of genders and what defines masculinity and femininity is that people use terminology not to simply name something, but to name something simply. Labels for ideas that we perceive are shorthand for things we cannot simultaneously comprehend all the time. We have this phrases and names for things we don't want to re-calculate the causality of why something happens over and over again.

What does any of that garble have to do with this topic? Practicality of verbose we use on a daily basis.

When you say something that exceeds biological commodity, ie: man and woman, it becomes a philosophical statement, an idea that only exists in a mental capacity. Imagine using philosophical arguments everytime you bring up your gender and qualities on a daily basis in real life. Is that really practical at all, isn't that only going to cause confusion?

That's why when you bring up something like "agender" "bigender" and other mental concepts, you can't physically see something like that in real life, you can only understand it. To say "bi-sexual" "asexual" "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are argued to be mental concepts, but they really aren't. You can see these concepts played out in biology by some sort of physical presentation, without getting into details, we know they exist.

I'm not saying "don't" use your own philosophy, but using it in real life makes for an impractical conversation, even if you establish a neologism for such a concept, there's so many different nuances to go with such neologisms that when you say "agender" the nuances could be entirely different from the next person.

From my roundabout conversation with myself here, I like to think that establishing "sexuality" is a physical concept, and that "man", "woman", and "hermaphrodite" are also physical concepts all with biological basis. Philosophy is impractical for conversation in real life because of the extreme complication of discussing ideology that changes from person to person. We like to rely upon constants, not variance.

[Tim Siguire]

It doesn't really matter, you're attracted to what you're attracted to xD

Yes & Yes. Lol.

[The Otter Is Cute]

"Sexual orientation poll", eh? The existence of such a thing deeply upsets me. Prying eyes... Advertising one's kinks. Brrr... Makes me shiver.

[George]

 The existence of such a thing deeply upsets me.  Advertising one's kinks.

I think you might be misinterpreting. Heavily.

[The Otter Is Cute]

I think you might be misinterpreting. Heavily.

Do elaborate, young man.

[George]

Advertising one's kinks.

You say that like this is a "what turns you on? " thread, but it's simply "what is your sexual orientation?" If you look at the first page, you'll see that this is a poll.

[The Otter Is Cute]

You say that like this is a "what turns you on? " thread, but it's simply "what is your sexual orientation?" If you look at the first page, you'll see that this is a poll.

You act like as if there was a difference. Dear god. Only my mentor would educate me in such a humiliating way. I am so hurt. Ah.

[anoni]

Please stay on topic

[IceRaccoon]

This reminds me of Industrial music pioneer Genesis P Orridge who went through a lot of painful surgery to become what is neither "male" or "female" in gender, but rather "alien sex". Sorry if its off-topic just bringing that on.

I do believe gender is part social construct part biological (there are even evidence that shows that men and women have different mentalities), however this never takes into account that things like hormones and libido can do to people to make them "choose" another sexuality for themselves, largely sexuality is a social construct too, these days and identity (and i'm against identity politics).

Really it shouldn't matter what sexuality people identify with, i always fail to understand what is so frightening about homosexuality (homophobia - the fear of homosexuality), however that word is most often means "hatred" and not "fear", i believe its a cultural thing, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all lines of the Abrahamic faith, which is what has shaped modern culture and beliefs, however if you were to go down to the pagan era, one would notice that the type of conservatism that we know of today didn't really exist, back then it was pretty much open for everything, slavery, pedophilia, bestiality, etc, there were no "social norms" in the way that we know them now. At least thats how i see it. End of rant.

[Kaiyo]

Just say you're bi. It means the same thing.

I'm not bi.

I think you might be trying to make orientation something which no one claims it to be Kaiyo.

I've only posted my assimilation of sexuality. The proof of attraction was correlated to neural reaction, this was also the case with fetishes and the reason why DSM has excluded many as mental illness, leading even to hate crime protection of these "sexualities". Hormonal response correlates to functional fixedness and pheromones, humans are unknown to use the latter normally. Many people were turned off entirely if the object seemed to be incapable of intelligence or was dead as in sapiosexuality. This shows that sexuality, like any form of intelligence of preference is multifaceted and reliant on numerous variables. Consensus is growing against binary gender. Attraction to looks is first guessed via convention of gender, the mind detects if someone dresses like say a female or a male for many, many were equally turned on purely seeing clothing and it has become an object of transvestism. Attraction to biological function relates more so to personality as studies for those "in the lifestyle" and out have shown, with those picking sexual role purely on how dominant they feel and fetish for the actions and it all involves higher cognition. Non-humans aren't even picky outside of pheromonal hints and naturally aggression levels. There is even evidence of preference of sexuality varying across many dimensions including age and species since after all, humans are genetically linked to other humans but also more distantly animals (regressive convergence).

From my roundabout conversation with myself here, I like to think that establishing "sexuality" is a physical concept, and that "man", "woman", and "hermaphrodite" are also physical concepts all with biological basis. Philosophy is impractical for conversation in real life because of the extreme complication of discussing ideology that changes from person to person. We like to rely upon constants, not variance.

There's more than three sexes or any other abstract in a quantum universe, estimations are what create labels. The provided labels aren't dynamic enough for me. I am a physicalist, conventional metaphysics is further from reality than dynamics and far more philosophical as opposed to mathematical.
I'd note that any statement is philosophical, whether right or wrong. It's just not right for me. Hermaphroditism isn't even included above and can be considered another sex, male and female aren't absolutes as many species and individuals will prove. Hermaphroditism has many blends. Male/female biology isn't absolute and historically were from the same thing, there are many theories and all suggest more than 2 sexes. There is also the lack of sex entirely as agenesis and there is an attraction to this. In the modern era, in reproduction for humans, surrogacy involves 3 roles which denotes there can be more than 2 roles distributed across persons, technically, in functional reproduction. This reflects the concept of prehistoric parasitical hosts which is very likely where reproduction originated from, which corresponds to the survivalistic viral hybridism many early Eukaryotes did in contrast to the cannibalistic theory.


So I'd estimate myself as polysexual.

[White Wolf Guardian]

I would refer to my paper about physicalism and why it is basically the same thing as epiphenomenalism, but I realize there's not much textbook following here, I just tried to show a different perspective.

There seems to be a belief that gender is a social construct, but physically that doesn't seem to make any sense.

Sexuality is also believed to be a social construct, but I think the misnomer lies in that people only want to recognize some sexualities as physically based.

Generally speaking I believe most of the gender-identity nuances to be from the "Tumblr Religion", but I find it too complicated for practical application.

[IceRaccoon]

No you got it wrong, gender isn't how you are based on your apperance, or even how you think, gender means when people apply artificial visions to a sex (Like women loves using make up and wearing dress, and men loves facial hair and working hard, thats gender). And sexuality is fully a social construct, you're right though because some people view heterosexuality or whatever as being the normal standard, thats not reality though animals have evolved to try a universe of sexual desires, if you get what i mean.   Personally i don't mind going to both sexes, however i do mind when they try to be a gender that don't match to their sex,thats not sexist, neither is being homosexual sexist, because its a personal attraction.


Just so everyone gets it straight:

Bisexual: loves both sexes, only when they have their original gender identities
Pansexual: loves any sexes, no matter what gender identity they may identify with.

And then you can apply "romantic" or "sexual" at the end to disguise between romantic feelings and sexual attraction, though thats minor if you ask me.

[White Wolf Guardian]

I think that's the common misconception about what gender is these days, people want to include "mannerism" with gender to make gender a social construct, but it isn't the same thing.

Gender is biologically described.

Mannerism is a social construct attached to mental capacities. The way someone is or prefers certain things, the philosophical perspective that is commonly tied up between "masculinity" and "femininity", but people feel the need to change mannerism into millions of pieces "or remove it entirely" by concept of the ideal agender person. When you include this into gender and/or sexualities, as is commonly chosen, it makes no sense at all.

Masculinity and femininity are constantly looked at as evil perceptions these days, but it's not really an evil thing to label a common constant that is frequent throughout society and his been for thousands of years; people are generally feminine or masculine, so this general understanding of what those concepts are, helps people find their "niche", either by modifying or accepting only those options to suit their philosophical needs.

[George]

+points for you, WWG.