An evolving thought: nondenominational affectional/sexual orientation

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

futura, arial, and helvetica >>>>>

 

[blatantlyobvious]

futura, arial, and helvetica >>>>>

Ugh--we've been moved on from that. Lol.

 

[Yuzo Lightheart]

the whole point of monogamy is that this is the person you intend to raise children with. how is that supposed to work when people just want to feel good. raising children is a sacrifice and a struggle not something you do just to feel good. thats why monogamy doesnt work when you have a culture that just wants to feel good for the sake of feeling good.

there was a thread in the locker room about clitoral orgasms vs vaginal orgasms and that lead me to realize that most women are just clitoral in their ability to orgasm AND their entire personalities as a whole. the clitoris is just a small penis but unlike a penis the urethra doesnt run through it so it doesnt pass any fluids like sperm or urine. that means that the only thing a clitoris can do is just feel good. it has no other purpose to exist other than to just feel good. thats it.

a lot of women i feel have succumbed to just obeying their clitoris and i think a lot of men today are also very clitoral themselves. people like this (men and women) tend to be more outlandish out of a constant need to feel good (stimulate their clitoris) and just say and do anything to bring about a selfish feeling of reward i noticed. theyre more excited than normal and use more excited style of speaking and expressing themselves a lot

it goes without saying they would make terrible parents. .you have to remember that a clitoris never gave birth to a child. its only function is to feel good. people that are very clitoral basically just use other people/things as a way to masturbate thier clitoris and thats pretty much the entire point of their lives

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

Ugh--we've been moved on from that. Lol.

 

[Blackking]

Any time you deem something unknowable you must realize that it's a two-way street. Saying that the pre-religious existence of non-heterosexuality can't be proven mere means that it either did or it didn't. Like the existence of God as an existential entity of perfection cannot be falsified, your claims of abnormality are not supported.

Consider the following: if the bible claims that non-heterosexuality is detestable, what is to be said about the animals that are unable to read? Unable to pass moral judgment? Are they hell-bound, contrary to the Bible's word suggesting that they're going to heaven?

The bible has already been written, so any adjustments made prove that there's a hidden agenda being pushed, opposing the normality of non-heterosexuality. The credibility of the Bible's teachings will be forever tarnished.

You're pushing so hard against accepting the naturalness of it all that you're forgetting that your attractions are natural to you. We have little to no control over who we're attracted to, according to the APA (2008); and for you to negate the empirical research, findings, and work of world scientists that have consented to the normality of non-heterosexuality with no factual support of your own only proves that you are in fact biased and in denial (unless you can prove otherwise). You can't provide evidence supporting religious claims, nor can you support your own; so, at this point, I can only assume you're blatantly ignoring the facts as a way to prevent yourself from suffering at the hands of good old cognitive dissonance. That disharmony can have some rather nasty affects on your psychological wellbeing.

As for it being "counterproductive", again, research suggests that sexuality is fluid, and that the reason we have no universal understanding of the "phenomena" is because of this fluidity. Due to sexuality being continuous in nature and hard to understand for human beings that lack the capacity for criticality (no shade), it is hard to accurately judge just how many non-heterosexuals--whether exclusively or predominantly homo, or equally homo and hetero; bi--there are. The same applies for you, my heterosexual counterparts. The lack of understanding has people self-identifying in ways contrary to their exhibited behaviors.

It really is a lot that I want to discuss with you, bro, but I'm on my phone, and I want to respond to as many posts as I can. We have to discuss this broad, controversial topic discretely (not to be confused with discreetly) to minimize the essay-like responses and ensure that we cover everything. Deal?

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

Ok. I think that you make some good points. Sexuality is fluid, but there are standards of normality because the majority of human beings consider certain things unnatural. I don't know if it's because society has damaged gays with discrimination to the point that they are sexually loose.. or if it's because they are just more prone- but homosexual increases the rate of HIV in any given population. Wheres the benefit in that? Strong sense of family makes society happier overall - how does homosexuality fit into that when it goes against what most people prefer or tolerate. ?

The Bible and religion as a whole has been manipulated and altered due to mans need to control and manipulate. Manipulation is used in all things and all agendas. Gays are over represented in the media. Is that because they simply want to push a gay agenda or is it justified because in order to push minds in the correct direction, we need to over-saturate?

Is it possible that homosexuality is not normal and is a disorder? For example some women are naturally horrible mothers and are lacking the genes needed for them to provide empathy towards children. You can say that's normal because it exist, but in reality it is a disorder.

 

[Blackking]

Lol. Demonic? Religious bias. That implies that femininity is deviant, when in actuality, as I've started before, it's natural. Keep in mind that a lot of what you learn from the Bible and religion cannot be tested or proven to be existential, so the constant need to make reference to it when facing empirical evidence, facts, or truths proves to be wasteful. That's like taking some brass knuckles to a nuclear war and expecting them to hold some sort of weight on the battlefield. Total obliteration...

Another thing: contrary to my feminine online persona, offline, you would probably not even think I was homosexual, much less a feminine, flaming homosexual. No two colors of our rainbow are exactly the same, and the same goes for people--everyone is unique as they are individuals; regardless of their similarities.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

No two colors of our rainbow, ugh? lol.. well I just know that there are biological reasons that men act like males and women naturally act feminine.

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

nothing new under the sun


i dont see this as evolution just a repeat imo

 

[Poppa_Dock]

the web needs to adopt avenir LT

 

[blatantlyobvious]

Ok. I think that you make some good points. Sexuality is fluid, but there are standards of normality because the majority of human beings consider certain things unnatural. I don't know if it's because society has damaged gays with discrimination to the point that they are sexually loose.. or if it's because they are just more prone- but homosexual increases the rate of HIV in any given population. Wheres the benefit in that? Strong sense of family makes society happier overall - how does homosexuality fit into that when it goes against what most people prefer or tolerate. ?

The Bible and religion as a whole has been manipulated and altered due to mans need to control and manipulate. Manipulation is used in all things and all agendas. Gays are over represented in the media. Is that because they simply want to push a gay agenda or is it justified because in order to push minds in the correct direction, we need to over-saturate?

Is it possible that homosexuality is not normal and is a disorder? For example some women are naturally horrible mothers and are lacking the genes needed for them to provide empathy towards children. You can say that's normal because it exist, but in reality it is a disorder.

[facepalm] C'MON, SON! [/facepalm]
Man, you're going to have to just read my other responses on this thread to minimize reiteration, because I've already covered and responded to majority of your response in responding other's responses. Lol.

As for homosexuality being a disorder, on 1973, the American Psychiatric Association started a chain of diagnostic removal of homosexuality being listed as disorder due to their being no evidence supporting those claims. Now, this isn't suggesting that there are no disorders associated with non-heterosexuality, because there are. Take ego-dystonic sexual orientation disorder [EDSOD], for example: the person(s) suffering from this disorder understand that they are their assigned gender, as well as understanding that they are non-heterosexually oriented, but they are unhappy with their orientation and wishes that it were different. The product of this disorder is generally cognitive dissonance--on a larger-than-typical scale--resulting in internalized homophobia; self-hatred. Of course, this disorder is the direct result of discrimination (whether it's self-directed or not, and for whatever reasons [e.g. personal beliefs developed through traditional teachings]). This is the only real disorder I can think of, off-handedly, but if you can provide me with more, please do so.

Also, I think you're constantly forgetting that there are plenty of observed species of lesser intelligent animals--from monkeys, to lizards, to dogs, to bugs, to dolphins--that engage in homosexual behavior as well. To me, that automatically discredits the possibility of it being "unnatural" as it is being exhibited in nature.

You know the answer to your question ("Is [the over-presentation of Gays in the media] because they simply want to push a gay agenda, or is it justified because in order to push minds in the correct direction, we need to over-saturate?"). I don't see anyone complaining about heterosexuality being overly-expressed in the media, as well as in real life (not just #asseenontv).

About bad patenting, though; I believe this is a choice--much like the choices people make to act on their sexuality (i.e. sexual behaviors; the choice made to have sex with the same sex)--whereas homosexuality (as an affectional orientation) is something people have no control over. That's not just true for homosexuals, though; it's true for anyone attracted to anyone. Can you control the fact that you're attracted to women? Is this something you chose? Nah. The choice you made was to have sex with women; not to like them.

Standards, as I've stated prior to this post, are social constructions. People didn't just all together start assuming homosexuality was immoral and detestable. Discrimination had its dirty hands in that, instilling fear and hatred towards all non-heterosexually oriented individuals, paving a path of ignorance that has been traditionally passed down from generation to generation in efforts to control and manipulate people (as you asserted).

Now, as for the HIV epidemic: it is, of course, the result of reckless behavior, and lack of concern for their physical health. The only difference between HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases or even other life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, is the nature of the disease itself. All diseases, unless inherited, are the product of recklessness (like smoking four packs of cigarettes a day and ending up with cancer; or sticking your dikk in too many women and ending up with some incurable STI [like genital herpes {which, if I'm not mistaken, 48% of all Black women have} or the new incurable strand of gonorrhea that recently reared its ugly head]). The emphasis placed on non-heterosexual individuals being responsible for this madness is absurd, and fueled by muddied concepts and hatred. The stigma suggesting that it is a "gay thing" has homosexuals not only fearful of going to get tested, but fearful of disclosing their (if positively diagnosed) statuses to their family, friends, and sexual partners, enforcing the spread of the virus. Not only that, but without the support of their family and friends, they could completely neglect their health and whither away or commit suicide.

So, to you, it may not seem important to educate one another on the naturalness of homosexuality being nothing more than a normal variation in human sexuality, but, as an aspiring psychiatrist, it is to me. Whether you view it as an agenda being pushed or not, that's your business, but think thoroughly about your blind discrimination and how uneventful it is; because at both the beginning and end of each and everyday, we are all human, and we are all imperfect.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[blatantlyobvious]

No two colors of our rainbow, ugh? lol.. well I just know that there are biological reasons that men act like males and women naturally act feminine.

Just as there are biological reasons that contradict your theory of natural male masculinity. Research suggests that hormone distribution in our pre-birth development is responsible for some men being naturally feminine, as well as some women being naturally masculine (as well as overall feminine-masculine appearance).

Review the following articles discussing biological hormone distribution and homosexual brain chemistry:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoc--maf020212.php

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/sexdif1.htm

http://www.femininebeauty.info/feminine-vs-masculine and http://www.femininebeauty.info/masculinization-feminization-in-men

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2010/07/sexual-orientation-wired-that-way.html?m=1

The first four cover masculinity and femininity, and the last one discusses the differences between a homosexual and heterosexual brain; explaining how homosexual men have similar brain wiring to that of heterosexual women, and vice versa for homosexual women.

Hopefully, you actually read them so I know I didn't waste my time. Lol.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[blatantlyobvious]

the whole point of monogamy is that this is the person you intend to raise children with. how is that supposed to work when people just want to feel good. raising children is a sacrifice and a struggle not something you do just to feel good. thats why monogamy doesnt work when you have a culture that just wants to feel good for the sake of feeling good.

there was a thread in the locker room about clitoral orgasms vs vaginal orgasms and that lead me to realize that most women are just clitoral in their ability to orgasm AND their entire personalities as a whole. the clitoris is just a small penis but unlike a penis the urethra doesnt run through it so it doesnt pass any fluids like sperm or urine. that means that the only thing a clitoris can do is just feel good. it has no other purpose to exist other than to just feel good. thats it.

a lot of women i feel have succumbed to just obeying their clitoris and i think a lot of men today are also very clitoral themselves. people like this (men and women) tend to be more outlandish out of a constant need to feel good (stimulate their clitoris) and just say and do anything to bring about a selfish feeling of reward i noticed. theyre more excited than normal and use more excited style of speaking and expressing themselves a lot

it goes without saying they would make terrible parents. .you have to remember that a clitoris never gave birth to a child. its only function is to feel good. people that are very clitoral basically just use other people/things as a way to masturbate thier clitoris and thats pretty much the entire point of their lives

Ooh, great post, bro. I completely agree. That notion can be applied to almost everyone sexually active nowadays. People simply love sex, and they often even look to build relationships based on it. So, this is an evolving thought, buddy. Welcome to the critical thinking clique. [daps]

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Type Username Here]

Just want to interject real quick and point out that the clitoris does serve a purpose. Pleasure has an evolutionary purpose as it leads to humans seeking sexual intercourse in high volume. If we only had sex for the purpose of reproducing, we would have ceased to exist a long time ago. We're so intelligent that we are in some ways dumb as fukk as well.

 

[Blackking]

[facepalm] C'MON, SON! [/facepalm]
Man, you're going to have to just read my other responses on this thread to minimize reiteration, because I've already covered and responded to majority of your response in responding other's responses. Lol.

As for homosexuality being a disorder, on 1973, the American Psychiatric Association started a chain of diagnostic removal of homosexuality being listed as disorder due to their being no evidence supporting those claims. Now, this isn't suggesting that there are no disorders associated with non-heterosexuality, because there are. Take ego-dystonic sexual orientation disorder [EDSOD], for example: the person(s) suffering from this disorder understand that they are their assigned gender, as well as understanding that they are non-heterosexually oriented, but they are unhappy with their orientation and wishes that it were different. The product of this disorder is generally cognitive dissonance--on a larger-than-typical scale--resulting in internalized homophobia; self-hatred. Of course, this disorder is the direct result of discrimination (whether it's self-directed or not, and for whatever reasons [e.g. personal beliefs developed through traditional teachings]). This is the only real disorder I can think of, off-handedly, but if you can provide me with more, please do so.

Also, I think you're constantly forgetting that there are plenty of observed species of lesser intelligent animals--from monkeys, to lizards, to dogs, to bugs, to dolphins--that engage in homosexual behavior as well. To me, that automatically discredits the possibility of it being "unnatural" as it is being exhibited in nature.

You know the answer to your question ("Is [the over-presentation of Gays in the media] because they simply want to push a gay agenda, or is it justified because in order to push minds in the correct direction, we need to over-saturate?"). I don't see anyone complaining about heterosexuality being overly-expressed in the media, as well as in real life (not just #asseenontv).

About bad patenting, though; I believe this is a choice--much like the choices people make to act on their sexuality (i.e. sexual behaviors; the choice made to have sex with the same sex)--whereas homosexuality (as an affectional orientation) is something people have no control over. That's not just true for homosexuals, though; it's true for anyone attracted to anyone. Can you control the fact that you're attracted to women? Is this something you chose? Nah. The choice you made was to have sex with women; not to like them.

Standards, as I've stated prior to this post, are social constructions. People didn't just all together start assuming homosexuality was immoral and detestable. Discrimination had its dirty hands in that, instilling fear and hatred towards all non-heterosexually oriented individuals, paving a path of ignorance that has been traditionally passed down from generation to generation in efforts to control and manipulate people (as you asserted).

Now, as for the HIV epidemic: it is, of course, the result of reckless behavior, and lack of concern for their physical health. The only difference between HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases or even other life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, is the nature of the disease itself. All diseases, unless inherited, are the product of recklessness (like smoking four packs of cigarettes a day and ending up with cancer; or sticking your dikk in too many women and ending up with some incurable STI [like genital herpes {which, if I'm not mistaken, 48% of all Black women have} or the new incurable strand of gonorrhea that recently reared its ugly head]). The emphasis placed on non-heterosexual individuals being responsible for this madness is absurd, and fueled by muddied concepts and hatred. The stigma suggesting that it is a "gay thing" has homosexuals not only fearful of going to get tested, but fearful of disclosing their (if positively diagnosed) statuses to their family, friends, and sexual partners, enforcing the spread of the virus. Not only that, but without the support of their family and friends, they could completely neglect their health and whither away or commit suicide.

So, to you, it may not seem important to educate one another on the naturalness of homosexuality being nothing more than a normal variation in human sexuality, but, as an aspiring psychiatrist, it is to me. Whether you view it as an agenda being pushed or not, that's your business, but think thoroughly about your blind discrimination and how uneventful it is; because at both the beginning and end of each and everyday, we are all human, and we are all imperfect.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

no spellcheck rightnow. on phone, but...


lol, it's not natural. The discrimnaton doesn't come from the entire world randomly coming to a consensus about chastising the gays. Why do you think that for most of history homo hasn't been accepted as normal? Has nothing to do with religion either.

The same reason, most of the world wouldn't think it's OK for a person to have sex with a human toddler, or a dog, monkey, lizards, and dolphins. People, for the most part, can agree that the male parts fit into the females parts and that can usually produce children, and survival of the species. IF you actually look at the thousands of things that have to fall into place to even produce a baby, you will see that that is what is natural.

There are openly gay people in my family. I wasn't raised with discrimination. I don't even discriminate actually. I basically just know that it simply doesn't make sense to say it's natural. You can't say, look at nature and just because there are VERY rare cases of gay sh1t in nature- then say that it must be natural. We are in Nature, we are a part of nature... we don't need to point to animals. Not only do we natually don't participate in homo activities without hormanol inbalances and genetic defects, or child hood abuse... We don't usually find it particularly useful with our survival as a species. I thought it was painfully obvious as why the recent surge in Gay convo and push for acceptance-- Its not because we are mentally evolving, it's because we are comforable, internationally connected, saturated with media, and now more than ever aren't leaning on our natural instincts for survival. If we were a True part of 'nature' then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

And for symantics sakes-- LETS say that it's natural. Well, so is mental retardation in that sense of the word natural. So is Albonism. So is parents killing offspring for various reasons. All- either not idea for society or detrimental to the individual.

10 gays on an island isolated.. come back in 200 years, probably wont be one homo on the island. Unless you want to state that homosexuality is taught.

 

[blatantlyobvious]

Just want to interject real quick and point out that the clitoris does serve a purpose. Pleasure has an evolutionary purpose as it leads to humans seeking sexual intercourse in high volume. If we only had sex for the purpose of reproducing, we would have ceased to exist a long time ago. We're so intelligent that we are in some ways dumb as fukk as well.

I agree with this, too. Repost this to the guy, @Blackking (I believe), that posted after you did. It'll minimize me having to have the whole "sex isn't solely for reproduction" portion of this impending essay. Lol.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Blackking]

Just as there are biological reasons that contradict your theory of natural male masculinity. Research suggests that hormone distribution in our pre-birth development is responsible for some men being naturally feminine, as well as some women being naturally masculine (as well as overall feminine-masculine appearance).

Review the following articles discussing biological hormone distribution and homosexual brain chemistry:

Male and female behavior deconstructed

Scientific American: Sex Differences in the Brain -- Men and women display patterns of behavioral and cognitive differences that reflect varying hormonal influences on brain development

How face and body shape vary with feminization and masculinization and Feminization and masculinization in the looks of men

Wiring the Brain: Sexual orientation – wired that way

The first four cover masculinity and femininity, and the last one discusses the differences between a homosexual and heterosexual brain; explaining how homosexual men have similar brain wiring to that of heterosexual women, and vice versa for homosexual women.

Hopefully, you actually read them so I know I didn't waste my time. Lol.

Sent from my LG Optimus L9 using Tapatalk 2

i read the last one... and i agree