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

[wierd]

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.

^---- THIS.

[Max White]

I find that setting a list of arbitrary rules is just going to leave you looking for reasons why you can't be with somebody, instead of just enjoying them...

[Vector]

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

*shrug*

It's also about strengthening our cultural inheritance.

Hell no. I love that idea. but make it even broader! Countries!
Let's beige the world and kick-start the pan-global race.

Until I was in college, I didn't even know you could tell which country a person was from because of their facial features or whatnot.  My family, interestingly enough, kind of uniquely doesn't "look" like anything.  I'm often asked "what I am," and people used to play guessing games at the dinner table or whatnot.

I find that setting a list of arbitrary rules is just going to leave you looking for reasons why you can't be with somebody, instead of just enjoying them...

Or maybe it's a well-articulated list of known turnoffs.  Like anyone who declares themselves heterosexual.

[XXSockXX]

I would never date a religious person, but that's a conscious choice, I might still find a religious person sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is a purely physical thing, you don't need to know much about about someone for that and you don't need to be intellectually attracted to them at all.

I wouldn't date a transwomen (in case I ever change my mind about the baby thing), and - as far as I can tell* - I have never met one I've found sexually attractive. But I don't think that makes me a bigot, because I don't have a problem with being around trans people, or hugging them or kissing them on the cheek. If I'm not attracted to them because of a biological/social/cultural behaviour pattern I'm not consciously aware of, I don't know, that is certainly possible.

*By that I mean: based on the people I've met who I know or noticed were trans. That obviously excludes the ones where I didn't notice and possibly ones I haven't met.

[Max White]

I declared myself heterosexual, look how that turned out.

[Vector]

I would never date a religious person, but that's a conscious choice, I might still find a religious person sexually attractive.

Right.  I'm just tired of fighting over and discussing those things.  It's not like "I won't have atheists in my house!!!" or something, it's just... I don't want to do that for my whole life.  And if people don't want to be with a theist for their whole life, more power to them!  I'm glad they know what they do and don't want.

I declared myself heterosexual, look how that turned out.

Hahahahah good point >.<

[wierd]

I look at sexual preferences a bit like food preferences.

For example, I really dont like asparagus or sweet peas. (Or raw peanuts)

Why dont I like those things? Beats me-- They just taste unholy gross to me. I cant stand that "sweet but not really sweet" taste they have. its... Its just gross.

Does that make those things bad? No. It just means I don't like them.

Other people can eat them all up, and I wont cry even a single tear.
However, my imposing that view on others is fundamentally wrong. If somebody REALLY loves asparagus, they should be allowed to eat all they want. I just dont want any of what they are having.

My going to the buffet table, and loading up on carrots, broccoli, cauliflower and pals, while strictly avoiding the sweet peas and asparagus is not in any way preventing somebody else who likes the asparagus and sweet peas from eating them as much as they want. As such, I dont see the problem with my not wanting to eat those things.

To me, the problem happens when mom turns up, and screams at me "EAT THAT ASPARAGUS, ITS GOOD FOR YOU!" even though I have tried asparagus, numerous times, and found that No-- No I REALLY dont like asparagus. It's gross.

Further, if, through some unholy power, the asparagus itself insisted that I eat it and that I like eating it-- or else I am a bad bad person-- that would be the pinnacle of No, Not cool bro.

A person's sexual preferences, and as such, their implicit anti-preferences, are not things that have a moral imperitive assigned to them.  So what if somebody doesnt think transwomen are the hawtness? It just means somebody else can date that perfectly acceptable transwoman. That's all it means.

When you start trying to make it political and assign moral imperatives to it, you go too far. Saying something like "Refusing to eat that asparagus is hurtful to asparagus eaters, and you should feel bad because of it!" is just plain silly. Likewise, saying something similar about not wanting a certain kind of partner is equally silly.

Thinking that it somehow ISNT silly, and basically forcefeeding people that dont want to eat asparagus those horridly flaccid green stalks of saccharine and telling them that not liking them makes them worse than dirt is every bit as harmful as trying to "Recondition" gay people, on the intellectual front. (I am not saying they do equal amounts of damage, only that they are equally bankrupt.)  All you are doing is forcing people to have a neurosis, AND to think they need to live in a way that will not make them happy, to satisfy some silly idea.

It doesn't matter what the preferences are. They aren't wrong, if the person stating and holding them is true to themselves.

Forcing a specific thing on somebody else is always wrong. Doubly so when there is some ideology that is not shared involved-- be it christian conservatism, or rampant political correctness.


Me, I dont like anything at the buffet.

[itisnotlogical]

I think I might be bisexual. I wondered about the one gay male classmate I had (I'm non-trans male BTW), but it never really went much further than wondering. To this point I've only dated girls, and I'm not entirely sure what would happen if a guy that I found attractive asked me out. I don't think I'd ever specifically seek a boyfriend though.

As far as religion goes, I'm fine with whatever until there's an argument about it. I'm atheist, and I only mind theists as much as they mind me. If a girl ever feels the need to try and convert me, then the relationship is probably in serious trouble because that is the one thing I will not be argued or persuaded on.

[XXSockXX]

Right.  I'm just tired of fighting over and discussing those things. 

Sure, we all have things we don't find intellectually interesting in a person, so we don't pursue serious relationships with them. That just hasn't much do to with sexual attraction, except that most people probably wouldn't act upon such an impulse with someone they find intellectually off-putting. Technically though you wouldn't even need to know that, you just need to meet someone in somewhat close range to know how sexually attractive they are to you.

A person's sexual preferences, and as such, their implicit anti-preferences, are not things that have a moral imperitive assigned to them.

Well, I basically agree, I guess the problem is, what we find sexually attractive, and if we act on it, is influenced by many things, some of which we are not consciously aware of. Obvious examples are the evolutionary patterns, where we are programmed to look for a partner that can produce healthy offspring, like men preferring younger women and women prefering high-status men. Then there are socio-cultural things, people are more likely to repress sexual impulses if there is a stigma attached to them. It is difficult to tell whether you simply find someone not attractive or if there a factors like a social stigma subconsciously influencing that. Of course, if it's subconscious and if you are otherwise accepting of individuals, I don't think you can be called morally wrong for that.

[Max White]

I think there is a difference between just not finding something attractive and actually making a list of things like "I don't date people who play hockey, or people from Spain, or people whos name starts with J". If you never find yourself with a Spanish hockey player named Jules then ok, cool, more power to you, but no need to preemptively dismiss people before you have even met them just because in the past it didn't go so well.

[Vector]

There's an awful lot of people on the planet, Max.

[LordSlowpoke]

@wierd: I might've lost context due to reading from your last reply forward, but I too am sick and tired of the recent happenings in supposedly progressive societies. You are no longer allowed an opinion; disagreeing with what people say for whichever reason makes you literally and figuratively Hitler. This might have a reason for being, as transphobia isn't going to go away unless centuries old gender bullshit is proven irrelevant and forgotten, but in this case? The ends fail to justify the means.

this is what you are talking about

right

[MaximumZero]

I'm going to condense what wierd said and say that just because someone wants to limit themselves arbitrarily doesn't necessarily mean that they're a bad person, they're just going to miss out on some people. It should honestly be met with a shrug. If you fall within their parameters, sucks to be you, but you can't force them to change. You can try to convince them, but that's usually fruitless, as those parameters are usually not terribly logical, or based on bad experiences in the past.

I, for one, refuse to date any more crazies. I've had my fill of having all of my earthly belongings burned for attention and sharp things thrown at my head.

[wierd]

@wierd: I might've lost context due to reading from your last reply forward, but I too am sick and tired of the recent happenings in supposedly progressive societies. You are no longer allowed an opinion; disagreeing with what people say for whichever reason makes you literally and figuratively Hitler. This might have a reason for being, as transphobia isn't going to go away unless centuries old gender bullshit is proven irrelevant and forgotten, but in this case? The ends fail to justify the means.

this is what you are talking about

right

No, its more what maximum zero got out of it.

Do you feel any arbitrary hated for somebody that doesnt want to eat chocolate?

What if you, personally, really like chocolate?

Why or why not?

Why is a sexual preference different?

Why would you feel it is necessary to force somebody to do something or to try to feel some way that they clearly, just dont?  (I find the idea of forcibly reprogramming somebody to be just plain sick. Be it forcefeeding them PoliticalCorrectness soup, or putting them into a "Dont be gay anymore, jesus hates that!" camp. They both do the EXACT same thing: Try to force an outside opinion on top of somebody, who has already developed their own wishes and desires. The society does NOT trump the individual.)

[GlyphGryph]

I'm with the Max's here, Vector. Evidence (experience, both first and second hand, as well as some studies I've seen done I could probably dig up) supports the fact that people who make lists of "things my partner absolutely can not have" do even worse on the dating scene than the people who make lists of things my partner absolutely must have.

It turns out the items on said list almost never actually matter - most of them only get on there because they are associated in the list-makers mind with some previous relationship (not necessarily romantic) in which those traits were coupled with something actually important but much harder to define in the form of a neat list.

It's not that it's not okay to approach things this way, it's that it's simply... not an effective strategy, if you want a long term and meaningful relationship. (Even for flings, you want to stick to the 'must haves' list rather than the 'must nots' list in general)

The only use of lists is to reduce the number of applicants if you're getting swamped. And even then you might as well just do the ol' "I only want to date lucky people, so I'm going to ignore 3/4ths of these folk at random because obviously those were the unlucky ones" approach for all most "lists" will increase your odds of a meaningful success.