Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Heterosexual

215 (62.7%)

Bisexual/pansexual

66 (19.2%)

Homosexual

16 (4.7%)

Asexual

37 (10.8%)

I'm 12 and what is this?

9 (2.6%)

Total Members Voted: 338

[Tack]

trans*

When did the asterisk get added?  I saw it for the first time, a few days ago.  I've never seen it before that.

I saw it for the first time a few months ago. It basically covers not just transgender/transsexual people, but genderqueer, transvestite, bigender, etc. people too.
(On that note, in case you were wondering what the difference between transgender and transsexual is; transsexual is usually reserved for those who've undergone either top (ftm) or bottom (mtf) surgery. Transgender is mainly used for people who are pre-op, but AFAIK they can be used interchangably.

[Doctus]

That would imply that a person's sexual preferences can be morally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with not being attracted to transmen/transwomen, while remaining attracted to natural born men/women.  It's what a person inwardly finds desirable or not.

This certainly appears to involve judging someone based on their history rather than their current condition, which I do think is morally wrong. Other than the inability to bear children, a post-op transwoman is within the ordinary range of variance for women in all ways that would reasonably matter (unless someone were searching for an excuse to hide transphobia). Refusing to consider a transwoman for a reason other than Japa's would be rather in the same category as refusing someone on the grounds of not being a virgin, or being born a śūdra. One is perhaps within one's rights to do so in some sense, but it reflects very poorly on the views and character of the one so doing, and it is hurtful and disrespectful to the people involved.

[wierd]

I disagree. Asserting that a person who feels "Squick" over transsexuals should feel ashamed, and change-- is just as morally bankrupt as asserting that a person that feels "Squick" over dating outside their own gender should feel ashamed.

EG, you are telling somebody else what they should or should not find attractive; what they should or should not like, and telling them it is immoral to disagree.

That's what led to Allan Turing getting the treatment he got. It's a dark road. dont go down it.  The people that hurt that man did so thinking that what they did was what was correct and proper.  That's what you should consider here when trying to grapple with that thought.

As for your specific examples--

Virginity, and social status

For men to insist upon virginal female partners, you just need to look earlier where I mentioned that the birth order for sons is important in determining prevalence of homosexuality.  If the society is more resource bound, there will be a stronger evolutionary drive for reproductively inclined males to seek virginal females, as the chances of male offspring being produced that seek female companionship (and thus, perpetuate the gene line) will confer a reproductive advantage. Birds dont really care about why the plumage is bright-- only that it is. It's intrinsic, a deeply rooted part of their being.  (You can use a magic marker on a not so colorful bird to make them very colorful, and suddenly they will get ALL the ladies. It's been done experimentally several times.)

Similar with social status. Humans are very powerfully controlled by social group dynamics. That is precisely why this thread is so popular-- Sexuality in relation to the societal norm is a very important discussion, with many complications and considerations. If the society actively discourages such unions, and has done so for a very long time, then it will start to make changes in people's physiology.

As controversial as it is, many women from strongly conservative Christian heritage backgrounds have reduced physical ability to orgasm. Christianity has only been around a few thousand years. Small, but profound change.

Ascribing what is or is not appropriate for being desirable with a moral label is like trying to moralize the birds.

It's nonsense.

[Andrew425]

That would imply that a person's sexual preferences can be morally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with not being attracted to transmen/transwomen, while remaining attracted to natural born men/women.  It's what a person inwardly finds desirable or not.

This certainly appears to involve judging someone based on their history rather than their current condition, which I do think is morally wrong. Other than the inability to bear children, a post-op transwoman is within the ordinary range of variance for women in all ways that would reasonably matter (unless someone were searching for an excuse to hide transphobia). Refusing to consider a transwoman for a reason other than Japa's would be rather in the same category as refusing someone on the grounds of not being a virgin, or being born a śūdra. One is perhaps within one's rights to do so in some sense, but it reflects very poorly on the views and character of the one so doing, and it is hurtful and disrespectful to the people involved.

I'm going to back up wierd here when I say you're kinda throwing people under the bus here.

It's okay to be picky with your choices, it's your prerogative. Acceptance of the individuals is another matter entirely.

[Ogdibus]

I'm not really seeing what this has to do with Allan Turing.  He was victimized for what he did with men, not for what he didn't do with women.

You all might want to keep in mind that attraction is to individuals.  A persons's true sexuality is determined when you add up the individual attractions.  It is not a thing that is decided consciously, based on generalizations.  The sexually motivated actions that are taken by a person will be affected by other criteria as well.  That is what you should be focusing on, and you should make that clear to observers, so that they are not confused about the matter as they read.  If you don't, you will get some responses that seem to be absurd or unintelligible.

[Grek]

A bee

This is a surprisingly good answer.

[Tack]

I find monoecious flowers with exserted, dorsifixed stamen highly erotic. What does that make me?

A bee

This is a surprisingly good answer.

I almost said 'hummingbird'.

I'm not really seeing what this has to do with Allan Turing.  He was victimized for what he did with men, not for what he didn't do with women.

I think he was using the metaphor as "The hate crimes imposed upon that minority could easily be imposed upon your new minority".
If you think at all that there is a moral issue with what someone is attracted to, then you're in danger yourself of becoming an oppressor.
Or so translates for me.

On another note, I (I assume my comment is the one causing some of this kerfuffle) am not judging someone on the past, but on the current. Literally the squick was my only beef. I know that transsexual people usually, through hormones and other reconstructions, as one of their gender would.

Spoiler: PG13 (click to show/hide)

But if it's down to the surgeon in question, then for me it's down to the trans* in question. I think humans are beautiful, and find specific parts of a female as personally attractive as one would eyes or face and so I would not personally want to dive in to something... (Looking for a much nicer word than 'malformed'.)

[Vector]

Sometimes one doesn't want to be with people who have had specific life experiences, and that does not make them bigoted.  I would, in general, prefer not to date someone who has fired a gun.  Or is a hard-line atheist.  That does not mean I am a bigot.

Oh, and would I date someone trans*?  Not that it's relevant, but yes!

[Tack]

That's actually quite interesting.

I know very friendly, very forgiving hard-line atheists. When asked about their religion they literally just say 'Oh, don't worry about it. I'll just end up boring you'.
I also know people who have fired a gun, as well as people who hunt for sport, and whilst the latter would cause issues in a relationship, I don't feel that my friend the chemist who wanted to test the kinetic potential of black powder in a modern firearm for his college thesis shouldn't be ostracized because of this.

Obviously these people are minorities, but If I may ask, is it the specific event which turns you off, or just what that indicates about their personality?

[Vector]

I didn't say ostracized.  I just said "wouldn't date."  I'm not ostracizing my dad because I choose not to date him, we just have a different social relationship than that.  I choose to put certain things in my home life, and not others.  I choose not to put in atheists and guns.  It's very simple.  Oh, and as far as atheists go--I already did that twice, and by now it's boring.  I want to explore something different, on top of the "would prefer not to add that to my home life."

But in more seriousness, my family does have a rule.  The rule is that you only date people whose ancestry is from a different geographical region than already is known to contribute to our bloodline.  I don't think people from different regions are exotic or superior or something.  It's just that that's the rule--diversification.  So what?

Are we seriously going to argue that it's offensive I wouldn't date someone German because I've got so much German in me already?

[Caz]

I didn't say ostracized.  I just said "wouldn't date."  I'm not ostracizing my dad because I choose not to date him, we just have a different social relationship than that.  I choose to put certain things in my home life, and not others.  I choose not to put in atheists and guns.  It's very simple.  Oh, and as far as atheists go--I already did that twice, and by now it's boring.  I want to explore something different, on top of the "would prefer not to add that to my home life."

But in more seriousness, my family does have a rule.  The rule is that you only date people whose ancestry is from a different geographical region than already is known to contribute to our bloodline.  I don't think people from different regions are exotic or superior or something.  It's just that that's the rule--diversification.  So what?

Are we seriously going to argue that it's offensive I wouldn't date someone German because I've got so much German in me already?

That's a unique and strange bunch of rules, but whatever works for you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, that rule is....really bizarre, Vector.

[Vector]

>_____>

It's just another step up the "don't fuck your cousin" ladder.  No big deal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But they're not your cousins. Their genetic distance from you is almost certainly arbitrarily large.

[Tack]

Hell no. I love that idea. but make it even broader! Countries!
Let's beige the world and kick-start the pan-global race.
You could technically use it to gather passports!

I've got British and Australian so far, So I guess I'm marrying abroad.