Sex and Sexual Orientation of NSers

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

No, that religion is one.

Not really... At least not for me.

[Condunum]

How big is your sizable portion?

~50%...

I... I... Tiger wood's sexuality was probably maybe .01% Of what he was. I think you need to get that check, Captain Harkness.

[The Blaatschapen]

No, that religion is one.

Not really... At least not for me.

It's also not for me, since I don't have one

How big is your sizable portion?

~50%...

Rawr!

[Quarelia]

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.

I agree that the influence is usually minor. However, I know from personal experience that it is a factor.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

~50%...

I... I... Tiger wood's sexuality was probably maybe .01% Of what he was. I think you need to get that check, Captain Harkness.

Really? Tiger Woods is your example of a very sexual person?

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

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.

The (in)famous gay gene ?

[Scholencia]

Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice?

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

I agree.

[The Balkin States]

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.

The (in)famous gay gene ?

Yes, that. Possibly. Maybe. But probably not.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

Hah. No.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

I reiterate. Hah, no, fuck that shit.

You can keep that all to yourself, thanks.

[Quelesh]

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.

"Fetishes" can be very important to a person's life, and sexual orientation isn't necessarily an important part of the identity of some people.

Regarding "severity," both could be severe, or not particularly severe. For example, straight people might be simply unable to become aroused by a member of the same sex, but a submissive may also be quite unable to get aroused when expected to be the dominant partner (or a foot fetishist without feet being involved in some way). And what does it mean for a pansexual to have a "severe" sexual orientation? That sex in general is an important part of their lives?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "fundamental meaning." Attraction to same sex vs. opposite sex and attraction to, say, fat people vs. skinny people both direct a person's sexual desires toward particular types of people. What's the difference in the meaning of these two continua of sexual attraction?

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.

You are who you are. I don't see a problem with that.

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?

Basically what Blaat said in the post after yours. Non-straight and/or non-cis Christians are probably somewhat more likely to stop being Christians at some point than straight, cis Christians, given that many, though certainly not all, Christians condemn non-straight and non-cis people.

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.

The gay->straight continuum may be somewhat akin to the introverted->extroverted continuum, or other personality traits: people have a genetic predisposition, that may be (and may not be) modified somewhat by environmental factors.

This ignores, of course, that for some people, gay/straight is a false dichotomy. Some people lie quite outside this continuum, or encompass points outside it. For some, gender differences are sexually irrelevant.

[The God-Realm]

The poll is too small my special snowflake category is not included ;~;

[Kharsus]

-Snip-

I reiterate. Hah, no, fuck that shit.

You can keep that all to yourself, thanks.

Keep the idea of living a life where sex isn't important to who we are as people to myself? Explain your logic on this, because from what I've seen, the whole sexual identity/gender thing causes nothing but social problems and alienation.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

-Snip-

I reiterate. Hah, no, fuck that shit.

You can keep that all to yourself, thanks.

Keep the idea of living a life where sex isn't important to who I am as a person to myself?

In a word, yes.

[Kharsus]

Ok, explain why. I wasn't saying that as a way to toot my own horn, I was saying it to throw the idea out there to try to get people to think about it as oh, I don't know, maybe a logical, sensible way to think that might help eliminate the problems like this that plague human sexuality in our modern times. (Problems being the alienation that results from sexuality differing from the majority) I'm saying that if people as a whole started thinking like this, the problems wouldn't exist, because no one would care about the physical manifestation of it. And if no one cared, no one would be alienated.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Ok, explain why. I wasn't saying that as a way to toot my own horn, I was saying it to throw the idea out there to try to get people to think about it as oh, I don't know, maybe a logical, sensible way to think that might help eliminate the problems like this that plague human sexuality in our modern times.

Denying part of who you are is not going to eliminate any problems.

[Anachronous Rex]

Ok, explain why. I wasn't saying that as a way to toot my own horn, I was saying it to throw the idea out there to try to get people to think about it as oh, I don't know, maybe a logical, sensible way to think that might help eliminate the problems like this that plague human sexuality in our modern times.

Denying part of who you are is not going to eliminate any problems.

Algonquin is basically elaborating the main problem with all variations on stoicism. You don't actually remove your passions by failing to acknowledge them, and they tend to resurface in ways that are unhealthy and self-destructive.

[Kharsus]

Ok, explain why. I wasn't saying that as a way to toot my own horn, I was saying it to throw the idea out there to try to get people to think about it as oh, I don't know, maybe a logical, sensible way to think that might help eliminate the problems like this that plague human sexuality in our modern times.

Denying part of who you are is not going to eliminate any problems.

It's not denying. It's trying to get people to stop thinking of it exclusively as something physical. I.e. not worrying about the tools with which the job is being done, but the reason the job is being done.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Denying part of who you are is not going to eliminate any problems.

It's not denying. It's trying to get people to stop thinking of it exclusively as something physical. I.e. not worrying about the tools with which the job is being done, but the reason the job is being done.

Did you think we forgot what you actually said?

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.

[Kharsus]

It's not denying. It's trying to get people to stop thinking of it exclusively as something physical. I.e. not worrying about the tools with which the job is being done, but the reason the job is being done.

Did you think we forgot what you actually said?

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.

No, but you forgot this part apparently, which followed right after:

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.

[Condunum]

I... I... Tiger wood's sexuality was probably maybe .01% Of what he was. I think you need to get that check, Captain Harkness.

Really? Tiger Woods is your example of a very sexual person?

Uhm, no... Captain Harkness was... DId you not read?

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Really? Tiger Woods is your example of a very sexual person?

Uhm, no... Captain Harkness was... DId you not read?

I apparently misread your post...
Who's Captain Harkness?

[New Maldorainia]

Uhm, no... Captain Harkness was... DId you not read?

I apparently misread your post...
Who's Captain Harkness?

Doctor Who and spin off reference

[Anachronous Rex]

Uhm, no... Captain Harkness was... DId you not read?

I apparently misread your post...
Who's Captain Harkness?

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Did you think we forgot what you actually said?

No, but you forgot this part apparently, which followed right after:

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.

I didn't. I ignored it because it applies only to you. Surprise, surprise, not everyone thinks like you do.