I do not believe in sexual orientation.

[KrisHawkXXX]

I'm gay and that’s all that really matters...but do have to ask KrisHawkXXX when someone ask if you are gay/straight/bi etc what do you tell them, that you are undefined...and since you don't believe in orientation (being in it's simplest form) what do you check under race and gender on forms, other as well since you don't want to be labeled and placed?

I put down what I assume the one requesting the information would be appeased by based on labels around me. I look white, so I put white. I have a male genitals according to physical descriptions that are widely accepted in medical books and the subject of biology so I put down male. Answer your question?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I made the statement but on a global scale. We grow and learn in just one lifetime, while society evolves over thousands and thousands of years.

I do not believe human nature is to be greedy, I believe human nature varies based on psychological development and environment.



For those who don't know politics or me, the USSR was a government of state capitalism. Just wanted to leave that note.

it not what killin folk all ova globe as a type?

ans other thangs?

-

where ma HOLE?
# COOOR #
cooh
" COOH "
we not chickens then?
@ nah we be relabel ans ons 3 fa 1 taday @
KOOL

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

it not what killin folk all ova globe as a type?

ans other thangs?

-

where ma HOLE?
# COOOR #
cooh
" COOH "
we not chickens then?
@ nah we be relabel ans ons 3 fa 1 taday @
KOOL

uhhhhh
HUH?!

Can you reword what you just said I don't believe I quite understood you I'm sorry.

 

[hotatlboi]

Buy a dictionary.

'Sexual orientation' is not a label. It is a human condition. Not believing in sexual orientation is like not believing in left-handedness, or tall people, or short people, or people with red hair, or people with bumps on their noses, or. . .

Seriously. The OP's statement is rather nonsensical.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

All definitions are man-made used to best describe ideas, actions, objects or other things known to society to help us understand our environment. So because man is not perfect, the door to questioning man's actions and constructed beliefs are not always irrational. I know what the dictionary says.

I look at things differently then others and many times look deeper then words themselves. Many things in life are not so simplistic. And there is no such thing as a dumb idea.

And why do people many times on this forum make a response to one notion of someone's ideas or words rather then the main topic at hand? It doesn't happen to just me, its like the bad case of social ADD that never went away here. I notice the same people only respond to my threads to contribute responses containing rhetoric, sarcasm, satire, or some sort of minor-hostility. GSDX has never taken part in my threads to offer something constructive.

 

[hotatlboi]

Many definitions are man-made

Correction, all of them are. All human language is by definition a human construction to facilitate communication.

I look at things differently then others and many times deeper then words themselves.

That doesn't mean you are correct. What you essentially said here is that everyone is bisexual and just doesn't realize it. That's simply not correct imo.

And there is no such thing as a dumb idea.

This statement is quite absurd.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Correction, all of them are. All human language is by definition a human construction to facilitate communication.

I corrected myself about all definitions being man-made before you quoted me.
As for a human language, that is a different department then the concept of a definition. A Language and a definition are two different things.

That doesn't mean you are correct. What you essentially said here is that everyone is bisexual and just doesn't realize it. That's simply not correct imo.

I never said everyone is bisexual. That was your personal interpretation. I said I do not agree with the labels set by society that determines someone's sexual preferences. For example my ex bf said he isn't attracted to people of color, but here and there he IS and has these little "exceptions." Hence why he is learning from me that labels aren't always quite accurate when defining how one's mind is developed emotionally and psychologically. And by preferences I don't infer that one CHOOSES their "orientation" in case you misinterpret that as well.

This statement is quite absurd.

No, ideas show one's intellectual ability to grasp a piece of knowledge or ability to question an already thought of idea, procedure, how things work, etc. An idea isn't necessarily correct (noting that all ideas aren't statements for they can be a range of things), but would you tell a child in a class room there is such a thing as a dumb idea?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

uhhhhh
HUH?!

Can you reword what you just said I don't believe I quite understood you I'm sorry.

reword? hey enjoy ya thread but whens cultures out thier butt let um know folk live planet fa eons no suffer da crap cultures WORDS ans what eva internet barf up late ta da table as all ways

no forgots ya alway got ya BITS ta play with

but no forget tip ans cut ya nails whateva label fingerins their snot while their cultures drippin out thier butt

XXX URRHUHURRRHUHR|URRHUH

-

cumpools is not fa cuttin ya nails in thankyou

OY ta millions on planet

Hey World cum on this lovely porn site bring ya KOOLS!!!!!! da intellect killin da mood

HA

 

[hotatlboi]

I never said everyone is bisexual. That was your personal interpretation. I said I do not agree with the labels set by society that determines someone's sexual preferences. And by preferences I don't infer that one CHOOSES their "orientation" in case you misinterpret that as well.

So what you are saying is that you don't want orientation to be called orientation? Ok, what would you prefer it be called?

What should we call the fact that some people are attracted to the same gender, some the opposite, and some both? It seems to me that the term for that is rather arbitrary and choosing another term besides 'sexual orientation' wouldn't really change anything.

No, ideas show one's intellectual ability to grasp a piece of knowledge or question an already thought of idea, procedure, how things work, etc. An idea isn't necessarily correct, but would you tell a child in a class room there is such a thing as a dumb idea?

There is such a thing as a dumb idea. If I were to suggest that we release all murderers from jail, that would be a dumb idea.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

reword? hey enjoy ya thread but whens cultures out thier butt let um know folk live planet fa eons no suffer da crap cultures WORDS ans what eva internet barf up late ta da table as all ways

no forgots ya alway got ya BITS ta play with

but no forget tip ans cut ya nails whateva label fingerins their snot while their cultures drippin out thier butt

XXX URRHUHURRRHUHR|URRHUH

-

cumpools is not fa cuttin ya nails in thankyou

OY ta millions on planet

Hey World cum on this lovely porn site bring ya KOOLS!!!!!! da intellect killin da mood

HA

Are you under the influence of something or just having fun?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Are you under the influence of something or just having fun?

oy! not ya cultures so whateva influence is or fun ya all ons ya own

thankyou



got cocks ta launch inta space excuse me

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

So what you are saying is that you don't want orientation to be called orientation? Ok, what would you prefer it be called?

I never said I don't want orientation to be called orientation. That was your interpretation once again. I don't care what its called, because that would be placing another label silly. People should just be free to be who they are. I am who I am. I am attracted to whoever comes my way depending on personality and certain physical traits.

What should we call the fact that some people are attracted to the same gender, some the opposite, and some both? It seems to me that the term for that is rather arbitrary and choosing another term besides 'sexual orientation' wouldn't really change anything.

Those people just happen to be attracted to those of their same gender for whatever particular reason and how their sexual development came to be. Why are labels on someone's mental structure so necessary? Why do people need to identify with labels set by man rather then be truly unique as all people are? If you wanna label yourself "gay" I respect that and I will refer to you as a gay individual. I want you to be happy. But in my mind you are someone who is solely attracted to males, for whatever reason. You are a human being with your own upbringing and I don't know you because this is just an online forum. I have no right to judge you at all. I don't care who you are or what you like, its the person you are in society and how you carry yourself.

There is such a thing as a dumb idea. If I were to suggest that we release all murderers from jail, that would be a dumb idea.

Well it depends on the circumstances of who is saying that and why. To judge you by that statement would be ignorant, because for all I know you could be someone who believe murders should be released and sent to psychiatric institutions to understand why they have developed so much hostility and try to comprehend how to help them on a case by case basis.

Once again would you tell a child in a classroom that there is such a thing as a dumb idea?

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't care what its called, because that would be placing another label silly.

So how should we identify it? The term "sexual orientation" refers to the differences we see in human sexuality. How should that be referenced in language if there is no term for it? You're just not making much sense here imo.

Why do people need to identify with labels

For ease of use. That's what all labels and definitions are for.

Do you want to have to say "people who are attracted to the same gender sexually" every time when referring to those people?

Why can't you just say "gay people"?

And actually both of those are phrases are labels, one just uses fewer words.

Well it depends on the circumstances of who is saying that and why. To judge you by that statement would be ignorant, because for all I know you could be someone who believe murders should be released and sent to psychiatric institutions

If I were to propose releasing all murderers into the streets, that would be a dumb idea.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

So how should we identify it? The term "sexual orientation" refers to the differences we see in human sexuality. How should that be referenced in language if there is no term for it? You're just not making much sense here imo.

I'm just more complex then most people I don't think so simplistically.

For ease of use. That's what all labels and definitions are for.

Do you want to have to say "people who are attracted to the same gender sexually" when referring to those people?

Why can't you just say "gay people"?

GAY PEOPLE! Happy?

If you wish to use that same logic, would you look at what you perceive to be a man and call him a man? Maybe he identifies as female, or doesn't wish to identify with a gender at all. Some people get offended by that.... notion of labels.

No, your idea would not be dumb. I would ask you why and listen to your reasoning and try to understand you. That is how humans should communicate. Now share with us why releasing murders in the street is your idea and what out come do you think your idea would lead to? You think so black and white sometimes, many our age go through that phase and its due to process of trying to understand the world around us. We are in a stage of being a young adult, and many times simplistic "Black and White" thinking is present in youth development. But sadly some adults don't grow out of that... Many of them become republican. (All Mexicans are violent, All poor countries are poor because they must be communist, all blacks are "ghetto", gays are going to hell, free health care will make everyone poor, etc.)

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm just more complex then most people I don't think so simplistically. It doesn't make me dumber or smarter then you. Once again I am not judging anyone mind you.

This statement doesn't answer my question.

I didn't say you had to give me a simplistic answer. I asked how we should refer to it. Again, you're not making much sense.

Ease of use? Well on a simplistic scale sure, but in reality not all critical thinkers don't think like-wise. If someone put a label on me to understand who I am rather then get to know me

This has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I never said someone should label you as gay without getting to know you.

We were discussing the term gay existing at all.

Why can't I say gay people? Because others that think like, would be offended if I assumed how their mind was developed without asking. That's pure arrogance. But to people that don't think that critically about those things, I guess it's alright.

Again, you seem to be confusing multiple things here. I'm not talking about assuming anything about anyone without basis. I'm asking how you would refer to people who are only attracted to the same gender if you would not use the term gay.

Would you just say "people who are attracted to the same gender" every time?

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

This statement doesn't answer my question.

I didn't say you had to give me a simplistic answer. I asked how we should refer to it. Again, you're not making much sense.


This has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I never said someone should label you as gay without getting to know you.

We were discussing the term gay existing at all.


Again, you seem to be confusing multiple things here. I'm not talking about assuming anything about anyone without basis. I'm asking how you would refer to people who are only attracted to the same gender if you would not use the term gay.

Would you just say "people who are attracted to the same gender" every time?

It depends on the context of the conversation. Here, start a pretend conversation and I'll show you how I would word things.

 

[erobert]

I'm glad to see this has evolved into an interesting philosophical debate on sexual orientation and labels. Good to see it hasn't devolved into a flame war.

I've seen female vagina's and breasts in straight porn (back when I was making sure I was really gay) and it didn't gross me out. I just wasn't interested in that. I was too busy looking at the guys. After taking biology and doing discretion a vagina is low on the list of things that gross me out.

 

[hotatlboi]

It depends on the context of the conversation. Here, start a pretend conversation and I'll show you how I would word things.

So you are saying that all dictionary definitions of anything referring to sexuality have to change based on the conversation?

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I'm glad to see this has evolved into an interesting philosophical debate on sexual orientation and labels. Good to see it hasn't devolved into a flame war.

I've seen female vagina's and breasts in straight porn (back when I was making sure I was really gay) and it didn't gross me out. I just wasn't interested in that. I was too busy looking at the guys. After taking biology and doing discretion a vagina is low on the list of things that gross me out.

THANK YOU someone saw I was trying to be philosophical. I was hoping he would catch on to that but he didn't lol. It's ok I don't always grasp everything either. But you know what, if people want me to refer to them as gay because that gives them the security of their identity by all means I will try to make that person happy by doing so. Lol if you aren't interested in women, it's that plain and simple. Nice to meet you, you are a unique individual.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

So you are saying that all dictionary definitions of anything referring to sexuality have to change based on the conversation?

Lol just to appease you, We're all a big gay happy family.

BTW we live in a VERY sexually repressive society. Labels (in defining one's mental capacity for any department) are just ways to discriminate someone's unique character.

BTW hotATlboi I think ur adorable