Print

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

[Truean]

I feel obligated to disclose my own bias. I'm exclusively attracted to men and couldn't imagine myself with a woman in any situation at all. The few friends who really know how I am would find the idea of me [ahem].... with a girl like that laughable or ridiculous. I actually tried to get myself to like women but simply just couldn't. I'm wayyyy on one extreme, so it is possible I just have a lot of trouble understanding this.

[G-Flex]

Even that hinges on your concept of what a "man" or a "woman" is; we're obviously influenced by those concepts, as well as the concepts of gender/sex-based orientation in the first place. Ancient Greeks didn't necessarily perceive of these things the same way, perceive of types of love/relationships the same way (they obviously didn't), nor did they necessarily treat sexual orientation (if they had such a concept popularly) as revolving around the same factors as us.

[Siquo]

Unfortunately, there is exactly such a law by the text as written: Leviticus 18:22. Its translated differently but its always more or less the same:

I got a different one here:

Leviticus 18:22 Bij een manspersoon zult gij niet liggen met vrouwelijke bijligging; dit is een gruwel.
"Thou shalt not lie with a manperson with female withlieing; this is horrible."

Yeah, withlieing. No idea what it means, no dutch dictionary can enlighten me. The only thing I can imagine is "lieing with". So that just translates to: "If you have to have a threesome, M+M+F is kinda horrible and you're not going to do that." Or: "Don't have sex with other men while women are present".

I think I'm with Gflex and Glyph here. Straight, gay and even bi are maybe what your "usual" preferences are, and exceptions don't change that. Or something, I don't know. I knew this American girl who was 100% lesbian, except for her boyfriend, so he was an exception to what she usually did.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Freud invented homosexuality.

Oh no, not Segmund Frood. My mum's favourite person to misinterpret and mess with his words to try and put me down in her own bizarre way.

[Truean]

"Thou shalt not lie with a manperson with female withlieing; this is horrible."

"withlieing"

with lieing....

With...lie...ing

Could it be an archiac term for "as one lies with a woman?" Kind of like how Shakespearean English is old and nigh incomprehensible to most modern English speakers without effort.

Kinda like "notwithstanding" except laying down....

It seems to fit in context?

Human sexuality: I don't understand it. My brain is still thinking the people/examples given are bi....

Even that hinges on your concept of what a "man" or a "woman" is
Being trans, I understand this more. My gender is all screwed up and I totally feel I'm a woman and thankfully I've run across some rather understanding individuals who are kind enough to see it my way. Sadly I've also run into the "your chromosomes will always be XY so you'll never really be a woman" thing .

Actually Vector has been rather kind to me in this and other regards.

Also I've noticed many gays have a "type" and this includes me. I'm the "feminine" type and I go for the more "masculine" type, especially engineers for some reason. (I find their abilities fascinating). This doesn't mean "muscle bound" necessarily so much as what role he plays and characteristics he has.

O god, I really don't understand this well at all do I...?

[Siquo]

Don't worry, we're all confused, one way or another 

[G-Flex]

"Thou shalt not lie with a manperson with female withlieing; this is horrible."

"withlieing"

with lieing....

With...lie...ing

Could it be an archiac term for "as one lies with a woman?" Kind of like how Shakespearean English is old and nigh incomprehensible to most modern English speakers without effort.

Or it could be absolutely nothing, because that word doesn't actually appear in any English translation (that I can find). Siquo's English quote there is probably a translation from the Dutch(?) he's also quoting... as if we need another translation step here.

KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
NIV: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Info and commentary: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

[Criptfeind]

Obviously it means you can not have vaginal intercourse with a male, which I find well founded advice, even if it is a little tautological.

Although on a less joking note, why do people even care? Your can't prove anything so you wont stop people from using it (and if you did they would use other ways). I am of the mind you might as well act like the Germans do and specifically ignore that part and get uncomfortable when it is mentioned.

[Virex]

Obviously it means you can not have vaginal intercourse with a male, which I find well founded advice, even if it is a little tautological.

Trying to penetrate the reproductive organ of a male would be rather abominable, if not downright cruel.

[Criptfeind]

But totally allowable by the bible.

[Willfor]

But totally allowable by the bible.

No, he was getting at the point that it would be the equivalent of what the Bible was actually saying not to do. If you're going to wise crack, keep up!

[Truean]

O, you mean number 4?

http://www.cracked.com/article_16313_the-5-most-terrifying-rites-manhood-from-around-world.html

Also back on track:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-approves-bill-to-end-apf-2136277445.html?x=0

Apparently we didn't need them?

[GlyphGryph]

Also, yeah, Truean, you managed a pretty good summary of what I was trying to say, I think.

Though truth be told, I didn't really have any objection to saying there's a good chance Achilles was only attracted to guys. It was simply some of the particular arguments and statements you used in the process, the one I quoted in particular.

Spoiler: Tangent... (click to show/hide)

The ONLY issue I had with your assessment of Achilles is that there's no overwhelming evidence for him being sexually active with anyone, though there's plenty of evidence for him being deeply in love with that one guy, being "deeply in love", especially in Greek culture, could have little to nothing to do with ones sexuality (from what I understand). It could just be Achilles had no interest in sex at all, which I know you mentioned as a possibility, and even then he could still have sex with the one guy because he loved with him (which doesn't require him to be gay), not because he wanted sex with a guy, but because he wanted to have sex with that one person, because Achilles loved him. Gay/Straight/Bi is all about averages and preferences, and barring supporting evidence, a single case will never offer anything approaching conclusive proof. But none of that is particularly important or something I actually care about, hence the spoiler.

[Vector]

Yes, Greek culture has many different kinds of love, and most of them are non-sexual.  Example--"agape," the spiritual love one would have of a mentor or god...  Here are the four types: Eros, Storge, Philia, Agape.  Some of these involve sex, some don't, many have it optional, loads don't give a crap about gender or try to break things down into "orientations" (if you've got Eros for girls only but your Philia has a side of gay intercrural sex once in a while as part of sealing your brotherly bond, what do you call it?).

And, well, Truean, breaking people down into bi, straight, gay only trisects the spectrum of sexual orientation, rather than leaving us with an understanding of "mostly straight," "mostly gay," whatever.  I'll continue to say that I'm "intellectualsexual," by which I really mean (I guess) that I feel lots and lots of Agape and Philia for teacher figures, but not that much on the Eros scale for anyone.  There's a really huge range of experiences.

[Reverie]

Intellectualsexual; a newly coined term by Vector. You heard it here, folks!