Gay or Straight?

Gay or Straight?

  • Gay

    Votes: 50 25.1%

  • Straight

    Votes: 120 60.3%

  • Bi

    Votes: 29 14.6%
  • Total voters
    199
Status
Not open for further replies.
Laser, what if I told you, that you COULD choose not to have those desires, maybe that your MIND is not strong enough, maybe that you haven't thought of a way to change what your think about and how you think about things. what if I told you that there is a dreamless sleep? Dreaming is good for you though...

The point is, have you ever heard of conditioning? Fluffy white rabbit maybe?
 
Neo_Remirez said:
I stated that I have nothing agains't homosexuals, you obviously missed that, probably hard to see through red.
Click to expand...
You're incorrect in thinking that I'm seeing red, and thinking you are against homosexuality (however you define it). Your argument is perfectly clear to me: I just believe you're at fault for considering what and who someone has sex with as the sole factor in deciding sexual orientation, i.e. I think dismissing the factor of personal urges in defining sexuality is incorrect. That's pretty much it. I'm chill, honest.
 
Please stop with the pointless arguing. No one is getting anywhere with it. In the end it'll be just one of these threads that have more off-topic arguing than on-topic shit~ I didnt come to this thread to read arguments ( even if they are pretty interesting in a way) The topic was whether you were GAY,STRAIGHT, or BI. Why the hell are pedophiles, boners on buses, and educational scientific stuff on this thread? Sheesh. Oh and I loved the pictures~<3 them boys and girl were hot * 3 * But if you must argue carry on~ Be sure to keep it spiced up *said in sarcastic voice* Also if I offend one of you, forgive me for that~ I just get annoyed with arguments~( that dont involve me cough cough)



jk.
 
Let these be the last questions thrown out. I believe its a choice, you choose to act on something or not. That was the entire conflict. Now, if you have sex with a woman your whole life, have had sexual thoughts that involve yourself or another man, never act upon them, what is the difference between you and someone who is with a woman and never had sexual thoughts of another man?
Why is sexuality the ONLY thing you can be without actually doing? Give examples of other things if there is any. (its getting late for me and I don't feel like using my super brain to try to find any, but if you do, go ahead, if you fail to realize what this question is and respond with something stupid, I will call you an idiot)
 
Neo_Remirez said:
Let these be the last questions thrown out. I believe its a choice, you choose to act on something or not. That was the entire conflict. Now, if you have sex with a woman your whole life, have had sexual thoughts that involve yourself or another man, never act upon them, what is the difference between you and someone who is with a woman and never had sexual thoughts of another man?
Click to expand...
You need to look outside behaviorism. Watson, Skinner, and Pavlov didn't have all the answers.


Why is sexuality the ONLY thing you can be without actually doing? Give examples of other things if there is any.
Click to expand...
A fan
A dreamer
A thinker
A victim
A schizophrenic
A sociopath
An addict
 
A fan is short for a fanatic meaning you live it love it eat it breath it, the term "fan" is used out of its original meaning now adays. Does not count. You have to dream to be a dreamer, so, again wrong. A thinker... you have to think... sorry... wrong... you have to be a victim to be a victim, you have to be victimized silly ass, you cant just claim to be a victim without proof. A schizophrenic .... lets just stop, you are an idiot lasercakes, you obviously missed the point... and to the first statement, are you saying that people haven't been scared straight? Are you saying someone traumatized hasn't changed? Please, it happened, it happens, it could happen for lots of things. This conversation is over as far as your involvement is concerned. Sit down, no need to reply, just sit there and stop trying, trying isn't working for you.
 
Neo_Remirez said:
Why is sexuality the ONLY thing you can be without actually doing? Give examples of other things if there is any. (its getting late for me and I don't feel like using my super brain to try to find any, but if you do, go ahead, if you fail to realize what this question is and respond with something stupid, I will call you an idiot)
Click to expand...

It's all much clearer now.

I see how you're qualifying the label "gay" now. It's still a faulty way to look at it. You're insisting that to be gay you must engage in acts that are gay. You're saying it's a label, and that to be part of any label you must engage in acts which are specific to that label.

You're missing one huge point - labels are used for many different things - more on this later. I think you got it in your head that the label "homosexual" means "has sex with men." This isn't a universal truth. The reason you're getting backlash is because you're using a very touchy word: "choice." You say that gay people choose to go have sex with their partners. This is true, yes, much in the sense that straight people choose to go have sex with their partners. Both choose to have sex; but is that what makes them gay or straight? In most peoples' minds, no.

As I said earlier, labels are used for different things. You say sexuality is the only thing you can be without actually acting upon. That's not true. You can be black, you can be Asian, middle eastern, etc. You can be short, you can be tall, skinny, etc. Labels aren't just meant to say "This guy does this." They're also used to say "this guy is this." And this is how most people see their own sexuality. You don't have to do "Asian things" to be Asian. Similarly, I don't need to go sex a man to be attracted to men sexually.

When you use a label like murderer, you're saying "this man murders people." So yeah, they probably should have murdered someone before you label them like that.

When you label someone as gay, you're saying "this person only likes people of the same sex." You're not saying, "This person has sex with people of the same sex" Because I mean, otherwise, what do you call a gay virgin? Just a virgin? Are all virgins asexual (thus have no attraction)? etc.

It should also be noted that one doesn't need to participate in something to like something or to find something attractive. I can LOVE cars - otherwise known as a car enthusiast - and never own a car. Similarly I can think men/women are sexy, and never have had sex yet.

I guess my question to you here mostly is - if you think that the labels "homosexual, bisexual" and "straight" require that you engage in sex, what do you label people who are exclusively attracted to one or the other, but haven't had a chance to act on it?

Neo_Remirez said:
Desty, as much as you love your ego so much, and love boasting about having wasted money on school, you even tried to state that one of the most popular dictionaries in the states was less credible globally as one of your sources. <terrible sentence BTW, I just wanted to state what you did..
Click to expand...

I don't have an ego, sir. I'm pretty humble, to be honest. I'm just saying you won't win a war of words with me.

I mean, you clearly misunderstood a sentence and tried to point out a mistake in it. There was no mistake. On a global scale, Merriam Webster is less credible than Collins', which is recognized in more places. The sentence is grammatically correct. I can parse it for you if you really need me to. But while we're on that topic, if you're going to try and point out an imaginary mistake I didn't make, Neo, don't follow it by creating a sentence fragment in which you have an incorrect use of your/you're:

Neo_Remirez said:
You're attack was.
Click to expand...

I am attack was? Really?
 
Neo_Remirez said:
A fan is short for a fanatic meaning you live it love it eat it breath it, the term "fan" is used out of its original meaning now adays. Does not count.
Click to expand...
Used out of it's original meaning? Do you think I fucking meant the original meaning? You know what meaning I meant. Where it's derived from does not matter.

You have to dream to be a dreamer, so, again wrong. A thinker... you have to think... sorry... wrong... you have to be a victim to be a victim, you have to be victimized silly ass, you cant just claim to be a victim without proof. A schizophrenic .... lets just stop, you are an idiot lasercakes
Click to expand...
No. Keep going. Schizophrenia is biological, like homosexuality, like heterosexuality. Explain why schizophrenia doesn't count.

You obviously missed the point
Click to expand...
You failed to communicate "your point."

and to the first statement, are you saying that people haven't been scared straight?
Click to expand...
Name someone who has been scared straight.

Also realize they didn't choose to pursue a chance of heterosexuality, but they were scared into trying it.
 
Lasercakes said:
Name someone who has been scared straight.

Also realize they didn't choose to pursue a chance of heterosexuality, but they were scared into trying it.
Click to expand...

To be fair lasercakes, I think he was using the colloquial version of "scared straight." That statement didn't have to do with sexuality, but rather to do with being scared back onto the right path. IE: Drug addict almost overdoses, gets so scared he ends up quitting these drugs despite the heavy dependency they grew.

It was just kind of the wrong conversation to use that term.
 
Why do you guys even reply to Neo? the guy won't listen to anyone which is obvious...and he's just trolling just go look at his recent posts good thing I put him on ignore don't have to hear anything from him.
 
Look, we KNOW Neo_Remirez is a troll. He's been doing it for longer then most of you have been eating hot meals.

HOWEVER.
If, Neo, you're attempting to engage in rational, reasonable discussion, then consider this:

Your basically saying that people aren't gay unless they have gay sex, correct?
And so, by that logic, one could chose to be gay, straight, bi, etc, by opting to partake in the relevant sexual relationship, yes?

However, a homosexual is someone who desires people of their sex - Gay men want to suck willies, etc.
This definition (Source: Every definition you will find in any unbiased dictionary/Every homosexual ever) means that engaging in the actual act of sex is irrelevant.

In short: If you're a man who wants to suck willies and thinks vaginas look positively Lovecraftian, then guess what? You're a raging, flaming, queerosexual, Whether you've actually touched anyone else's dingdong or not.

Now what you believe, is that in choosing NOT to have sex with someone of the same gender, you're asexual, am I right so far?

I can see where this might mislead you, but it's still incorrect. The only choice you're making is NOT to have sex. Even if you don't act on those feelings, it doesn't matter. Just by being exclusively attracted to the same sex, you're gay.

And it doesn't matter if you don't want to be gay. It doesn't matter if you pretend not to be, because you are.
There're reports of men who've left their wives, kids, families, because they realise they were just deluding themselves the entire time. Men who couldn't accept their sexuality, and so they forcefully acted against it, trying to bury it and lock it away.
But in time they realised that that only caused pain. They relented, came out. They no longer engage in sex with females. The thought of it brings them no joy. Would you argue then, that they were gay, straight, or bi?

The fact of the matter that being gay has nothing to do with having any gay sex. If you're gay, and haven't had sex, it doesn't make you asexual, it just makes you a virgin.

As a final question, what's your take on curiosity? People who aren't certain what they want. Maybe this guy tried sex with another guy, but afterwards, decides he didn't enjoy it. What is he? By your definition, he's either gay, bi, or pan. Or does curiosity fall under a different set of rules?

Much obliged.
 
Destinizish said:
To be fair lasercakes, I think he was using the colloquial version of "scared straight." That statement didn't have to do with sexuality, but rather to do with being scared back onto the right path. IE: Drug addict almost overdoses, gets so scared he ends up quitting these drugs despite the heavy dependency they grew.

It was just kind of the wrong conversation to use that term.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whoops. I might've been trying to hard to keep this in context, but ever hear "sober is just another term for thirsty?" Perhaps it was the wrong way to build up to it, but certain addicts are addicts for life. They don't choose to not have the urge. They choose to suppress it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRD
le_bello, I am not a troll. And very interesting questions, but you are stating opinions as facts. In some ways Desty is correct, and I am talking about labels. As I previously posted many times, someone who is a man and is sexually active with a woman is not gay. At the point they LEAVE the woman and are alone, they are asexual, they are forced to please themself. From Together into Single. When they find a man and engage in sexual activity with them, at this point they become gay. Now, if you are a man and you have sex with a man and a woman at the same time, this is literally the way you are Bi. This is something that can be seen, and studied, and tested. Now, FEELINGS for something, that is where I drawl the line. Women change their mind constantly (as an example) they can be fucking you, get off, become unaroused, and file rape charges. Peoples' feelings change ALL the time based on their mood. When some people climax, they no longer care about sex, become asexual. When a woman has had a lot of shitty boyfriends and no longer has sex with men, she becomes asexual. She watches straight porn but pleasures herself, asexually. I don't consider the fleeting feelings someone has to impact their credibility. If you have shown by example that you are gay, you are gay, if you have shown you are straight, you are straight. Without action or proof there is nothing to use as a fact. As for the examples of being something without doing something, you used race.... as an example? Seriously? Seriously? You are african american because you are african american, it can be tested, it can be seen. Take a look at their parents, they africans! Just because you copy an asian doesn't make you an asian, you have to live asia to be asian. You have to BE IT, like if you want to be gay, you have to fucking BE GAY. As for homosexual, I am well aware it means both men and women, as well as animals. I am smart, don't forget, 4.0 GPA 160IQ, don't try to degrade me by pretending I am an idiot.

Laser, I already said sit down, you are out of this already.
 
Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you have any sort of clue about issues regarding sexuality.

Sexuality can certainly be fluid rather than static, but are you honestly, genuinely, truthfully saying that you think that anyone who isn't in a sexual relationship at a certain point in time is asexual? Like... really? No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back