Sex and Sexual Orientation of NSers

[Quelesh]

and yet they don't include submissive...

...because it's not an orientation?

Honestly, I'm not convinced that there's any categorical difference between the gay->straight and dominant->submissive continua. Both attempt to categorize people based upon their sexual desires and arousal, and both are continua with extreme points at the end and shades of gray in between, rather than discrete yes/no values.

What's an asexual?

You mean like a plant?

Someone who's not attracted to either gender.

More accurately, someone who doesn't have sexual feelings.

I am a pansexual.
Hey, dont look at me like that. Like you wouldnt tap that

(Image)

I don´t think it matters to homosexuals. I think most of them are irreligious.

And that's how the debate started.
Are Christian === straight cis? And why?

Not all Christians are straight and/or cis, certainly, though I would say that Christians are at least somewhat more likely to be straight/cis than nonreligious people. This isn't because of anything inherent in Christians, but simply because Christians who are non-straight and/or non-cis are probably more likely to question, and ultimately move away from, their religion than straight, cis Christians (being condemned by many in your own religion, or knowing that you would be condemned if you came out to them, tends to prompt religious questioning and soul-searching).

You know maybe if certain people weren't so bent of concocting increasingly retarded acronyms, maybe, just maybe, society would take them more seriously.

Yes because it's the initialisms that make people hate gays.

QUILTBAG really is an acronym, though.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Fair enough. Probably falls under the T in that case. I've no great desire to either expand or contract LGBTQ. It's inclusive of just about everyone that should be involved, and isn't too long.

I personally don't mind the "I" myself.

Point.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Like fuck A is for Ally.

They have absolutely no place in our little umbrella.

I added it since some people do, but I agree.

Allies? No they don't.

People might include them, but lord knows they shouldn't be.

[The Steel Magnolia]

...because it's not an orientation?

Honestly, I'm not convinced that there's any categorical difference between the gay->straight and dominant->submissive continua. Both attempt to categorize people based upon their sexual desires and arousal, and both are continua with extreme points at the end and shades of gray in between, rather than discrete yes/no values.

Yeahhhh, no.

Fetishes are like add ons. Entirely separate from sexual orientation.

[Ruzer]

I'm seeing a lot of intelligence in this thread, as well as a pinch of ignorance here and there.

Oh, and gay male. In the southern US. Yup.

[Quelesh]

Honestly, I'm not convinced that there's any categorical difference between the gay->straight and dominant->submissive continua. Both attempt to categorize people based upon their sexual desires and arousal, and both are continua with extreme points at the end and shades of gray in between, rather than discrete yes/no values.

Yeahhhh, no.

Fetishes are like add ons. Entirely separate from sexual orientation.

What's the difference? The length of time they last? Both can persist throughout a person's life.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yeahhhh, no.

Fetishes are like add ons. Entirely separate from sexual orientation.

What's the difference? The length of time they last? Both can persist throughout a person's life.

Their importance to one's life, their severity, their fundamental meaning.

[Kharsus]

What's the difference? The length of time they last? Both can persist throughout a person's life.

Their importance to one's life, their severity, their fundamental meaning.

Both can include any of those three attributes. Pedophilia, for example, can have a profound effect on one's life if they are caught and prosecuted, not to mention the effect it has on the prosecutee's victim. I'm not saying they're necessarily equal, but the terms you set were vague enough to have fetishes fit into the definition. Another fetish of note would be furries. My best friend has been a furry for many years now and I have to say it absorbed his life once he started, and changed him like nothing else before.

[The God-Realm]

I'm seeing a lot of intelligence in this thread, as well as a pinch of ignorance here and there.

Oh, and gay male. In the southern US. Yup.

Go to California and be free my homosexual brother.

[Kharsus]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that it seems silly to use anything sexual as an identifier for anything really.

I think a better way of thinking would be to think of yourself/ourselves in a non-sexual way, completely throw gender and sex out of the equation, so that we may see ourselves for who and what we really are; who we are as sentient beings, as minds. I've always preferred to think in this way, as sexuality for me has always been purely emotional, at least in its most basic way of thinking. The only purpose sex serves for me is as a bonding link with my partner, as it is a symbol of the emotional union my partner and I share. And when you get to the bottom of it, that's the point really: an emotional bond. So all in all, the sex itself doesn't really matter, it's the bond that counts.

[Libertarian California]

Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

[Immoren]

Yes because it's the initialisms that make people hate gays.

It doesn't make them seem like a respectable group, kinda like the parades.

Hey, hey, hey! No hating Junior Woodchucks!

Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

All the time.

[Torisakia]

Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

No.

Because you have no idea what they look like(unless of course they posted their pic in the WDYLL thread).

[Suudeir]

Straight male

[Mike the Progressive]

Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

That one Venezuelan chick was gorgeous.

[Cometopia]

I'm not sure what's going on here anymore but... bisexual female-for-ease's-sake

I'm really uncomfortable as a girl but you know, I'm more uncomfortable as a femme guy. Grew up in a small town. Dumb people. Dumb friends. Only learned about *trans movement as a concept a few years ago. Thought, "welp that's not me, I don't feel like a man in a woman's body, I just feel uncomfortable in a woman's body. I don't want to get all that surgery! I suppose I'm just butch."

Flash to now, and I'm too comfortable pretending to bother being outspoken. I hate me.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that it seems silly to use anything sexual as an identifier for anything really.

I think a better way of thinking would be to think of yourself/ourselves in a non-sexual way, completely throw gender and sex out of the equation, so that we may see ourselves for who and what we really are; who we are as sentient beings, as minds. I've always preferred to think in this way, as sexuality for me has always been purely emotional, at least in its most basic way of thinking. The only purpose sex serves for me is as a bonding link with my partner, as it is a symbol of the emotional union my partner and I share. And when you get to the bottom of it, that's the point really: an emotional bond. So all in all, the sex itself doesn't really matter, it's the bond that counts.

If I "throw anything sexual out of the equation" I would be ignoring a sizeable portion of who I am.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

No.

Because you have no idea what they look like(unless of course they posted their pic in the WDYLL thread).

So? Looks aren't everything.

[Filthy Ginger Bastards]

Unread postby Libertarian California » Tue May 21, 2013 11:09 pm
Anyone else turned on by the thought of fucking another NSer? I'm not talking about anyone in specific, but just the idea of it.

You have my attention

But seriously, someone with equally strong political beliefs? This could get vigorous.

Power struggle!

My caucus needs a Minister of Cool and Unusual Punishment.

[The Blaatschapen]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that it seems silly to use anything sexual as an identifier for anything really.

I think a better way of thinking would be to think of yourself/ourselves in a non-sexual way, completely throw gender and sex out of the equation, so that we may see ourselves for who and what we really are; who we are as sentient beings, as minds. I've always preferred to think in this way, as sexuality for me has always been purely emotional, at least in its most basic way of thinking. The only purpose sex serves for me is as a bonding link with my partner, as it is a symbol of the emotional union my partner and I share. And when you get to the bottom of it, that's the point really: an emotional bond. So all in all, the sex itself doesn't really matter, it's the bond that counts.

If I "throw anything sexual out of the equation" I would be ignoring a sizeable portion of who I am.

How big is your sizable portion?

[Scholencia]

Not all Christians are straight and/or cis, certainly, though I would say that Christians are at least somewhat more likely to be straight/cis than nonreligious people. This isn't because of anything inherent in Christians, but simply because Christians who are non-straight and/or non-cis are probably more likely to question, and ultimately move away from, their religion than straight, cis Christians (being condemned by many in your own religion, or knowing that you would be condemned if you came out to them, tends to prompt religious questioning and soul-searching).

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

[The Blaatschapen]

Not all Christians are straight and/or cis, certainly, though I would say that Christians are at least somewhat more likely to be straight/cis than nonreligious people. This isn't because of anything inherent in Christians, but simply because Christians who are non-straight and/or non-cis are probably more likely to question, and ultimately move away from, their religion than straight, cis Christians (being condemned by many in your own religion, or knowing that you would be condemned if you came out to them, tends to prompt religious questioning and soul-searching).

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

No, that religion is one.

[Quarelia]

Not all Christians are straight and/or cis, certainly, though I would say that Christians are at least somewhat more likely to be straight/cis than nonreligious people. This isn't because of anything inherent in Christians, but simply because Christians who are non-straight and/or non-cis are probably more likely to question, and ultimately move away from, their religion than straight, cis Christians (being condemned by many in your own religion, or knowing that you would be condemned if you came out to them, tends to prompt religious questioning and soul-searching).

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

To a limited extent, yes. Not saying wholly, or even mostly.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

If I "throw anything sexual out of the equation" I would be ignoring a sizeable portion of who I am.

How big is your sizable portion?

~50%...

[Condunum]

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

To a limited extent, yes. Not saying wholly, or even mostly.

It's almost entirely not, if even slightly. It's something that's developed over the early years of one's life, through various undetermined factors. There's a possible genetic link somewhere.