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]

Helgo:

But that doesn't follow either; homeopathy was originally tendered as an explanation for things like developing poison resistance. Eat a little poison all the time, become resistant to a big dose when they try to kill you.

That is litterally what the name means. "Practice of same poisons" (give or take).

At the time it seemed relavent and innovative. (Since it was replacing "its of the devil! THE DEVIL!" As the source of illness and pathology.)

We have simply found considerably more information that shows homeopathy to be... flawed.

The same can be said about aristotle's humors, or ptolemy's geocentric universe, and yes-- perhaps in 100 years, some of our scientific theories, such as perhaps, string theory.

If you don't have something better to compare it against, you can't rationally determine if it is bunkum or not.

I would assert that because science does not state perfect knowledge, only what we have been able to observe and test, it holds the better route to providing a suitable answer.

However, people have the right to believe whatever they want-- such as believing ingesting small amounts of deadly microbes will cure them of being infected with said microbes--

That does not mean they have a right to be correct.

[misko27]

Helgo:

But that doesn't follow either; homeopathy was originally tendered as an explanation for things like developing poison resistance. Eat a little poison all the time, become resistant to a big dose when they try to kill you.

That is litterally what the name means. "Practice of same poisons" (give or take).

At the time it seemed relavent and innovative. (Since it was replacing "its of the devil! THE DEVIL!" As the source of illness and pathology.)

We have simply found considerably more information that shows homeopathy to be... flawed.

The same can be said about aristotle's humors, or ptolemy's geocentric universe, and yes-- perhaps in 100 years, some of our scientific theories, such as perhaps, string theory.

If you don't have something better to compare it against, you can't rationally determine if it is bunkum or not.

I would assert that because science does not state perfect knowledge, only what we have been able to observe and test, it holds the better route to providing a suitable answer.

However, people have the right to believe whatever they want-- such as believing ingesting small amounts of deadly microbes will cure them of being infected with said microbes--

That does not mean they have a right to be correct.

Geocentrism is the One True Theory. Everything else is LIES. LOGICAL WELL-THOUGHT OUT LIES.

[Cheeetar]

I'm fairly sure Bucket was just making a joke, guys.

You might want to read more of his posts, then, because I almost guarantee he is not. LB brings his New Age pseudo-Buddhism into just about any thread he can.

That's interesting, then.

I never figured out LB - sometimes I think he's trolling, but he's definitely a productive and respected forumite...

You could certainly say that he's a productive poster.

[MorleyDev]

There's a fundamental counter to a person's right to believe what they want, and that's the right to shun a person for their beliefs. To call those beliefs out for being stupid. That's freedom of speech: You can say what you like (so long as it doesn't break a person's right to live without threats to their personal safety), and people can call you a moron for saying it.

When society as a whole regards spreaders of an idea/belief as morons, then society largely leaves that idea/belief behind. People who expose those views suffer social repercussions, namely people dislike them and think less of them so the meme doesn't spread as easily, and those who hold them and do not expose them do not spread the memes to others at all. Eventually, those ideas largely die off. Government or commanded censors are bad, a society inherently censor itselfs to prosper.

Back to original topic, I've been fairly open about identifying as asexual. Sex just ain't something I particularly desire for. At best it's just physically messy and awkward, at worst it's something animalistic and exposing. I like romance though. Romance is nice and fun, though it can be emotionally messy and awkward at times sure, but that's part of the fun (which I'd guess is what a sexual's view on sex is).

Heh, you know I've actually seen it said before "asexuality is sinful" since the bible commands "go forth and multiply" (but choosing not to have sex despite wanting to because you wear a frock is ok because logic?). Not a common opinion, or at least not one a lot of bigots think about when they have the nice shiny target of marriage actually becoming a fairer institution in the eyes of the law, but one that does appear from time to time in discussion.

[WillowLuman]

Are you comparing LordBucket to a hatemonger? If not, that example is a bit inappropriate.

[XXSockXX]

Actually since there was no moral or ethical aspect whatsoever to that esoteric metaphor LB used, I'm surprised by the turn this discussion has taken.

[MorleyDev]

Actually no, sorry if that's what I seemed to be doing. That was just me waxing on and extrapolating from my "freedom of speech includes both being able to say something stupid and being able to call that person stupid". The final part wasn't supposed to be connected to the start outside of "freedom of speech covers this too". I do kinda regard spreading stupid ideas and spreading hateful ideas as the same, in that hateful ideas tend to be stupid and that I think both are damaging to the people they spread to and/or the people around them, so that may have leaked through a bit too.

Again, apologies that that wasn't clearer. I'll do a bit of editing to make the threads of thought more obvious since I think I mashed three separate ones into a single paragraph.

[XXSockXX]

I was just saying. Morality and stuff can of course be part of the discussion IMHO, I was just surprised by what caused it to shift toward that topic.

[Helgoland]

Abstraction, my dear boy.

[MorleyDev]

Well I was trying to talk in the abstract and got caught on a tangent about censorship and freedom of speech xD

Anyway, speaking of tangents: I found two interesting blog posts I thought I'd share. They are both about male asexuality and masculinity. They were pretty interesting reads, touching on how the association of sex and masculinity hurts men and women, such as making male abuse victims the butts of jokes and unlikely to be treated seriously, and by focusing too much on the "having sex is fine!" aspect of sex positivity, people often they neglect the "not having sex is also fine!" part and how that can feed into propagating the traditional damaging ideas of masculinity it is trying to end. Like I said, interesting.

Male Masculinity, Asexuality and Rape.
Male Asexuality and its challenge to masculinity

[ECrownofFire]

If you masturbate, you're not asexual.

Not necessarily.

I know somebody who masturbates, but is sickened by the thought of actually having sex with another person.

I'm curious as to what they masturbate to, but that would probably be well outside the limits of the forum rules.

This single arrow will be the only hint you get from me.

<---


More to the point, I'm not entirely surprised at the larger portion of non-straight people here. The internet's generally fairly open about that kind of thing, and I suppose a straight person isn't going to be interested in sexuality because it doesn't really affect them.

[MorleyDev]

Sure asexuals can masturbate. Masturbation isn't sex, and doesn't necessarily need to be tied to any desire for sex or attraction to someone for sex. Basic bodily response still means orgasm = endorphines. Asexuals don't feel any sexual attraction to anyone. That's really the only thing the term means. Masterbation to most asexuals who do it is probably best explained as closer to another bodily thing like going to the bathroom in terms of "just a thing"...

[Rose]

I'm just gonna point out that, for the purposes of the poll, at least, and as far as I'm concerned, for that matter, if you're a guy that likes to sleep with other guys, but you chose to call yourself heterosexual, then you're heterosexual. Same goes for asexual.

[ECrownofFire]

I'm just gonna point out that, for the purposes of the poll, at least, and as far as I'm concerned, for that matter, if you're a guy that likes to sleep with other guys, but you chose to call yourself heterosexual, then you're heterosexual. Same goes for asexual.

I'll never understand people who do this. If it quacks like a duck...

[Max White]

I think I can understand having sex with people of the same gender and still being heterosexual. Just because you enjoy sexual acts with somebody doesn't make you romantically attached to them. It doesn't mean you want to hold their hand, or cuddle with them, or all those other fun little personal acts, you are just after some good old fashion Roman sex for the fun of it.

But the inconsistency here is that would mean your sexuality is defined by romantic attraction, rather that capacity to enjoy intercourse, as such you can't really claim to be asexual on the basis of not enjoying the intercourse if you still have romantic attractions.