Hi,
I mean, how many of you have questioned your sexuality. What was the outcome? Do most teens question their sexuality? Or do people that you’ve known question their sexuality? What was the outcome?
Thanks
They very capacity to questioning one’s sexuality needs to be recognized in and of itself as a sexuality. A decent chunk of the population does question it, and experiment. Another part unconsciously explores it under psychological tension and accident. The rest just muddles through it all. It’s the latter two that define sexuality, and the shame in promoting the orthodoxy of the latter in not knowing the origins or how to explain to others their weird kinks. The one’s who experiment with variations as if their scientist searching for the theory of everything- it really doesn’t matter who they fuck, what fucks them, what’s pierced, and what’s not… still the same sexuality… they’ve modularized it, and it’s not really any better.
I think what many philosophers and sexual radicals are obsessed with is the hybridization first two groups… voluntary and secretive hybrids… people who bounce between controlling it, and who get into a kink and can’t figure out why. Leads to a inebriated outlook, and the only sensible response in such a outlook is a utilitarian all fucks are equal outlook. Unfortunately, this ISN’T the case… as the AIDS epidemic and the French Pox of earlier eras spread under this outlook the fastest… and now everyone’s sexuality includes reference to rubber and petroleum based products… which we clearly didn’t evolve to consider… and these contraceptives in return have had unexpected effects on our system of economic and population distribution and administration, region by region, country by country. Some of the wealthiest, supposedly best educated genepools are collapsing the fastest… in some places at a rate paralell to genocide even though on the surface they look rather peaceful and happy. This is some of the ramifications of sexuality when the first two groups merge.
We used to have other aspects… extending out of groups two and three… priesthoods and vice police who controlled society via intercommunication of the growers of the ovaries- the women, using their natural prejudices to maintain a stable, if not growing, society. However, it’s become fashionable to laugh at such people and deride them as hocus pocus acts, and everyone follows increasing the first two groups, and as a side effect most such societies are on the decline.
I make allowances for other groups to emerge. I don’t think heterosexual of gay exists, but the female body is clearly designed to arouse the male… and males who don’t pick up on this have other issues going on. Same things with females and cock… if they don’t want it, something is wrong. It’s not the people persay… it’s not their cultural expressions of male or female, it’s just basic biology your momma and pappa who figured this out should of explained to you. Certain curvatures, shapes, inflations, tones, flexing of the body and facial expressions have a natural appeal, and by time your privates are working, you should know which socket your shape of genitalia fits into or around. All that other recreational stuff isn’t sexuality, it’s politics meeting psychology. Sensuality it a political means to preserving the viability of the population… rape isn’t sensual but it makes babies, and is a sexuality… one that has psychologically imprinted itself on both sex.
We’re just lucky the aesthetics of our natural biology works enough times on average to keep the population going in this era at all… if we all broke out and actually followed suit with what the philosophers preached, we’d all die off fast.
You only recognize a broken tool.
Hi Contra-Nietzsche,
Thanks for your input
Wrong because…?
“the female body is clearly designed to arouse the male” is bullshit. The way it actually works is male physiology/psychology is “designed” (constituted) in such a way to be aroused by features of the female body. (Except this isn’t always true.) You got the relationship a little messed up.
I don’t think sexual orientation is bound in such a significant way to parental instruction. And momma and pappa didn’t figure it out through logic or lab tests… they just felt it early on, quite passively really, by being so obviously taken by members of the opposite sex.
Again, it really isn’t about “knowing” what fits. Anyways, the whole “fitting” thing comes way way later than the most important feature of sexuality we experience: basic attraction.
As opposed to the aesthetics of our unnatural (homosexual) biology…? Armageddon via homosexuality. Let’s say more and more people turn out to be homosexual, and the population does indeed decline as a result. To the point of extinction. Why is that necessarily bad? What if species survival depended on – instead of heterosexuality, which is debatable itself – everyone killing their moms. As absurd a situation as that may be, do you consider species survival the ultimate goal at any cost?
Good observation.
Most of them I would imagine. I did and I am 100% butter side up. Of course there will be people who are born 100% straight who never did, but that is probably only slightly less rare than being 100% butter side down. I have been attracted to men I suppose, but the thought of sleeping with any of my sex tends to make me feel a bit well disgusted tbh.
I’d rather be a hammer than a nail, at least when it comes to questions on sexuality.
When it comes to homosexuality (indeed, any form of sexuality) I personally can’t see it as either unnatural or abnormal. Of course, this depends on how one is using the terms.
Natural
This term is often used in a variety of senses, and is often used casually to mean normal (normative thinking) or right (moral thinking). I use it in a much narrower sense to mean that which occurs in nature. And as I am of the opinion that humankind is not separate from nature (i.e. not extranatural, supernatural, etc.), I believe that anything that occurs in humans (including all varieties of sexuality) is natural. To say otherwise is to either posit that humankind is outside of nature in some way or to conflate the term natural with such terms as normal or right.
Normal
Again, in practice and common parlance this term is used variously, being frequently conflated with right (moral thinking) or frequent/commonplace (as in the statement ‘it’s not normal to sleep during the day’). It also implies norms or standards, which may be explicit or ideological. These norms could be cultural, moral, dictated by a religious code, dictated by a legal code, specific to a particular community, etc. I believe to say something is normal or not normal is impossible without an appeal to a norm (be this appeal explicit or implicit). Working out what a person means by ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal/not normal’ is a question of uncovering the normative framework from which they are operating. And as I believe these are relativistic, I don’t believe the terms ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal/not normal’ make sense without qualification from such a framework. To take an example:
A: ‘Homosexuality isn’t normal.’
B ‘Why do you think that?’
A: ‘Because it’s just wrong.’ (Conflation of normative thinking with moral thinking.)
B: ‘Based on what?’
A: ‘I don’t like the idea of two men together.’ (Based on a norm created by one’s own tastes and desires.) Or:
A: ‘The Bible says so.’ (Based on a norm founded in a relgious code.) Or:
A: ‘It’s not natural.’ (Conflation of natural with normal - see above.)
With regard to the tastes and desires thing, it’s remarkable how many heterosexual males are apt to condemn homosexuality as if it applies only to males but quite happily accept women having sex on their computer screens.
I started questioning my sexuality when I started getting propositioned by other women, and I concluded that it wasn’t me… it was them just trying their luck and seeing if they could score: this was verified by a gay friend of mine.
The view from ancient history…
I was a teen in the sixties. As best I can recall, there was close to zero discussion of homosexuality in the social circles I knew. It was a non-topic, pretty much completely ignored. We weren’t for or against gays, our interest in the subject didn’t rise to the level where such opinions would have emerged. If our high school had had a forum, this thread would have never appeared. Not from censorship, but from vast sweeping ignorance.
I do remember one guy who came out, at least in the way he dressed. We casually thought he was sort of odd, maybe chuckled, but didn’t give much thought. Now I realize he was actually the bravest person in our extremely socially competitive high school, and I regret not knowing him better. We can’t compare coming out today to coming out in 1970, an entirely different ball game.
Looking back, I now realize I was once courted by a closeted gay friend hoping to date me. But at the time, I was utterly oblivious. Completely clueless. The whole thing went completely over my head. Duh…! Thus was the ignorance of the time.
Much has changed, much for the better.