Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
No, it's not a rhetorical question
Anything between consenting adults is OK, anything else is not.
Well I posed it as a rhetorical question, but you chose to answer it! I happen to agree with you, regarding consenting adults. The problem is there are always political parties and special interest groups who want to break down even more barriers. For example the Communist Party of Great Britain want to abolish the age of consent, so it then comes down to a consenting adult and a consenting child. Inconceivable! Well that's what people would have said about gay marriage twenty years ago.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
Had that in funny enough, but needed Zooaphile for the Zed
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
There is a brilliant book by Ursula Le Guin, the 'Left Hand of Darkness' I believe it is called. Where she imagines just that. A 'human' society where people got their 'monthlies' and became either male or female ( genitalia wise) for a week, and then shagged incessantly. Then after a week their libido would revert to neutral for three weeks. As a result a 'person' could both father a child, and mother a child in their lifetime.
I don't like everything Le Quin has written but when she's on form she's excellent and that is one of her best, if not the best.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
It's very much on the agenda of this particular Marxist, Roz Ward and she stated as much at a Marxist conference. Her "anti bullying" program which the Leftist Premier of Victoria wants to introduce to all schools in Victoria, will teach primary school kids as young as 7 all about gay sex, and has kids as young as 11 role playing as being Lesbian, bi, having had multiple sex partners by the age of 15, in fact everything other than being heterosexual. No need to give me the benefit of the doubt as I didn't make any link between paedophilia and bestiality and LGBTI people. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to be truely inclusive and cover every base with all these different labels, then you need to recognise people who like to have sex with animals as well, as unpalatable as that may seem, just as some people may find gay sex unpalatable. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
I think you recognise those who like to have sex with animals or anyone/thing else that's deemed incapable of giving consent, so we would be talking about rapists and paedophiles too, as criminals.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Good points SDAddick, especially (3) - which I agree with completely. On the other hand, and completely sincerely without wishing to appear provocative or in disagreement, do you feel that the excessive labeling of groups (I'm thinking of the evolution from LGBT to LGBTAIQ+) is doing anyone any good?
Personally I find it quite frustrating as an onlooker, because although I don't think there should ever be a requirement for an umbrella term for what essentially boils down to "Don't be a dick (and/or vagina ) and treat everyone else with the respect you'd like to enjoy yourself.", I do appreciate that there may be a need for that term in the current climate. However, when the usage and meaning of that term begins to be the focus of the debate, then I can't help but fear it's actively facilitating the avoidance of the real issues.
A very good question and good point, and while nomenclature is a hugely powerful tool in recognizing a person or people's identity (which is why gender pronouns are so important to people), when the conversation or debate simply becomes about terminology for the sake of terminology, then yes it's become a bit self defeating.
Personally, I know people who fit into categories so easier to empathize and humanize these terms, when we talk about pansexuals I can say "oh, my friend Mike." That said, despite growing up with with two gay uncles, this wasn't always the case, and it wasn't until I was 25 and had moved to Florida that I met a transgender person, and saw the difficulty they had in being recognized for who they are. So I absolutely understand why this seems strange and pedantic to some. As @Davo55 brought up very humbly, it is confusing, and confusing people (aforementioned getting hung up in terminology) can keep the larger message from getting across--which you put very well.
Where I think there is value in identifying so many groups is to reinforce the fact that sexuality and gender are not binary, and give names, recognition, and power to groups of people who have existed for a long time without formally acknowledgement to further illustrate this.
The big, underlying point here (consciously and subconsciously) is to remove the stigma of "sexual deviant," and to "normalize" practices. Within this thread we've seen bestiality and age of consent being raised, the latter in particular having nothing to do with anything discussed. But it seems that when discussing different sexuality or gender models, conversation quickly seems to domino from consenting practices to criminal behavior.
In the end, yes, and I think there will be an umbrella term at some point, as one of the primary functions of language is to take complex concepts and simplify/over-simplify/bastardize/etc, them. And I do think that will be beneficial. But I think for now, with so much of this being so new in the public sphere, it's beneficial as teaching tool to call out so many groups.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
It's very much on the agenda of this particular Marxist, Roz Ward and she stated as much at a Marxist conference. Her "anti bullying" program which the Leftist Premier of Victoria wants to introduce to all schools in Victoria, will teach primary school kids as young as 7 all about gay sex, and has kids as young as 11 role playing as being Lesbian, bi, having had multiple sex partners by the age of 15, in fact everything other than being heterosexual. No need to give me the benefit of the doubt as I didn't make any link between paedophilia and bestiality and LGBTI people. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to be truely inclusive and cover every base with all these different labels, then you need to recognise people who like to have sex with animals as well, as unpalatable as that may seem, just as some people may find gay sex unpalatable. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Really? Well I weren't doing that, I really hope you understand that. And it's only now that you've mentioned it that it's now part on the tread.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Really? Well I weren't doing that, I really hope you understand that. And it's only now that you've mentioned it that it's now part on the tread.
I didn't see you as doing that, I saw you as creating a flippant list, I assume in part because you think all the lettering is a bit much, which I understand (see above). Nothing you listed was a criminal act.
My concern, which I also tried to explain in my last point, is that bestiality and and pedophilia, and general illegal behavior, often come up in these conversations. These are commonly used as slurs. As such, it confuses that if this is known, why is the leap made to criminal behavior? It'd be like us talking about train journeys (because, you know, Charlton), and then someone talks about hijacking a train and packing it full of explosives.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
It's very much on the agenda of this particular Marxist, Roz Ward and she stated as much at a Marxist conference. Her "anti bullying" program which the Leftist Premier of Victoria wants to introduce to all schools in Victoria, will teach primary school kids as young as 7 all about gay sex, and has kids as young as 11 role playing as being Lesbian, bi, having had multiple sex partners by the age of 15, in fact everything other than being heterosexual. No need to give me the benefit of the doubt as I didn't make any link between paedophilia and bestiality and LGBTI people. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to be truely inclusive and cover every base with all these different labels, then you need to recognise people who like to have sex with animals as well, as unpalatable as that may seem, just as some people may find gay sex unpalatable. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
Teach them all about gay sex, or teach them that people of different sexual orientations exist and that that doesn't make them any less of a person?
A few months ago, my daughter asked me (in the swimming pool of all places) "daddy, can ladies marry other ladies" to which I replied "yes". She then said "can men marry other men" Again, I answered "yes"
She thought about it for a second and then asked "well why didn't you marry one of your friends then?"
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Really? Well I weren't doing that, I really hope you understand that. And it's only now that you've mentioned it that it's now part on the tread.
I didn't see you as doing that, I saw you as creating a flippant list, I assume in part because you think all the lettering is a bit much, which I understand (see above). Nothing you listed was a criminal act.
My concern, which I also tried to explain in my last point, is that bestiality and and pedophilia, and general illegal behavior, often come up in these conversations. These are commonly used as slurs. As such, it confuses that if this is known, why is the leap made to criminal behavior? It'd be like us talking about train journeys (because, you know, Charlton), and then someone talks about hijacking a train and packing it full of explosives.
Alright then, think of another sexual orientation beginning with Zed! And I'll be happy to change my list......
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Really? Well I weren't doing that, I really hope you understand that. And it's only now that you've mentioned it that it's now part on the tread.
I didn't see you as doing that, I saw you as creating a flippant list, I assume in part because you think all the lettering is a bit much, which I understand (see above). Nothing you listed was a criminal act.
My concern, which I also tried to explain in my last point, is that bestiality and and pedophilia, and general illegal behavior, often come up in these conversations. These are commonly used as slurs. As such, it confuses that if this is known, why is the leap made to criminal behavior? It'd be like us talking about train journeys (because, you know, Charlton), and then someone talks about hijacking a train and packing it full of explosives.
Alright then, think of another sexual orientation beginning with Zed! And I'll be happy to change my list......
; )
I genuinely interpreted that as an affliction for Zooey Deschanel. Which seems to be the opposite of other groups discussed on here, it once seemed perfectly normal, almost encouraging, but not it increasingly seems tired and weird.
Am I the only person who watches the walking dead and gets turned on? My Zombiephilia hasn't been something that I've had the chance to act out yet but I feel that it's real and defines who I am. One question to the board though, do I need to get consent from a zombie before doing the deed or does its mindless deathlike state preclude this legalistic requirement? Thanks for your help.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
It's very much on the agenda of this particular Marxist, Roz Ward and she stated as much at a Marxist conference. Her "anti bullying" program which the Leftist Premier of Victoria wants to introduce to all schools in Victoria, will teach primary school kids as young as 7 all about gay sex, and has kids as young as 11 role playing as being Lesbian, bi, having had multiple sex partners by the age of 15, in fact everything other than being heterosexual. No need to give me the benefit of the doubt as I didn't make any link between paedophilia and bestiality and LGBTI people. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to be truely inclusive and cover every base with all these different labels, then you need to recognise people who like to have sex with animals as well, as unpalatable as that may seem, just as some people may find gay sex unpalatable. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
Am I the only person who watches the walking dead and gets turned on? My Zombiephilia hasn't been something that I've had the chance to act out yet but I feel that it's real and defines who I am. One question to the board though, do I need to get consent from a zombie before doing the deed or does its mindless deathlike state preclude this legalistic requirement? Thanks for your help.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Good points SDAddick, especially (3) - which I agree with completely. On the other hand, and completely sincerely without wishing to appear provocative or in disagreement, do you feel that the excessive labeling of groups (I'm thinking of the evolution from LGBT to LGBTAIQ+) is doing anyone any good?
Personally I find it quite frustrating as an onlooker, because although I don't think there should ever be a requirement for an umbrella term for what essentially boils down to "Don't be a dick (and/or vagina ) and treat everyone else with the respect you'd like to enjoy yourself.", I do appreciate that there may be a need for that term in the current climate. However, when the usage and meaning of that term begins to be the focus of the debate, then I can't help but fear it's actively facilitating the avoidance of the real issues.
A very good question and good point, and while nomenclature is a hugely powerful tool in recognizing a person or people's identity (which is why gender pronouns are so important to people), when the conversation or debate simply becomes about terminology for the sake of terminology, then yes it's become a bit self defeating.
Personally, I know people who fit into categories so easier to empathize and humanize these terms, when we talk about pansexuals I can say "oh, my friend Mike." That said, despite growing up with with two gay uncles, this wasn't always the case, and it wasn't until I was 25 and had moved to Florida that I met a transgender person, and saw the difficulty they had in being recognized for who they are. So I absolutely understand why this seems strange and pedantic to some. As @Davo55 brought up very humbly, it is confusing, and confusing people (aforementioned getting hung up in terminology) can keep the larger message from getting across--which you put very well.
Where I think there is value in identifying so many groups is to reinforce the fact that sexuality and gender are not binary, and give names, recognition, and power to groups of people who have existed for a long time without formally acknowledgement to further illustrate this.
The big, underlying point here (consciously and subconsciously) is to remove the stigma of "sexual deviant," and to "normalize" practices. Within this thread we've seen bestiality and age of consent being raised, the latter in particular having nothing to do with anything discussed. But it seems that when discussing different sexuality or gender models, conversation quickly seems to domino from consenting practices to criminal behavior.
In the end, yes, and I think there will be an umbrella term at some point, as one of the primary functions of language is to take complex concepts and simplify/over-simplify/bastardize/etc, them. And I do think that will be beneficial. But I think for now, with so much of this being so new in the public sphere, it's beneficial as teaching tool to call out so many groups.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. For me, gender is very much a binary matter, XX chromosomes= female, XY=male. I accept that in very rare instances, due to abnormalities, gender may be hard to determine, but we are talking about 1 in 4500 Intersex babies, extremely rare. A man can transform into a women but he will still retain his XY chromosomes and therefore still be biologically a male. All this talk of gender neutrality and gender fluidity is IMO, bullshit. You are what nature intended you to be. You might not like it, you might want to change it, but it is what it is. This is all about braking down barriers and de stigmatising, I understand that and done in the correct way, I wouldn't be so concerned. But it has now become a social engineering exercise, where kids as young as 7 are being sexualised and indoctrinated, and are being directed to gay material online. In the case of gay sex, we are talking about a practice that was outlawed around the world until relatively recently and still is in some countries, a criminal offence. So I think in that context, it is relevant to talk about other sexual practices that are presently outlawed, because the world seems to be changing extremely quickly and what may seem reprehensible at the moment could conceivably become acceptable at some stage in the future. I think we need to move back to football matters SD, where I agree with almost everything you post !
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
It's very much on the agenda of this particular Marxist, Roz Ward and she stated as much at a Marxist conference. Her "anti bullying" program which the Leftist Premier of Victoria wants to introduce to all schools in Victoria, will teach primary school kids as young as 7 all about gay sex, and has kids as young as 11 role playing as being Lesbian, bi, having had multiple sex partners by the age of 15, in fact everything other than being heterosexual. No need to give me the benefit of the doubt as I didn't make any link between paedophilia and bestiality and LGBTI people. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to be truely inclusive and cover every base with all these different labels, then you need to recognise people who like to have sex with animals as well, as unpalatable as that may seem, just as some people may find gay sex unpalatable. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people's sexual preferences, or is there no line? That's a rhetorical question!
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
' 1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Good points SDAddick, especially (3) - which I agree with completely. On the other hand, and completely sincerely without wishing to appear provocative or in disagreement, do you feel that the excessive labeling of groups (I'm thinking of the evolution from LGBT to LGBTAIQ+) is doing anyone any good?
Personally I find it quite frustrating as an onlooker, because although I don't think there should ever be a requirement for an umbrella term for what essentially boils down to "Don't be a dick (and/or vagina ) and treat everyone else with the respect you'd like to enjoy yourself.", I do appreciate that there may be a need for that term in the current climate. However, when the usage and meaning of that term begins to be the focus of the debate, then I can't help but fear it's actively facilitating the avoidance of the real issues.
A very good question and good point, and while nomenclature is a hugely powerful tool in recognizing a person or people's identity (which is why gender pronouns are so important to people), when the conversation or debate simply becomes about terminology for the sake of terminology, then yes it's become a bit self defeating.
Personally, I know people who fit into categories so easier to empathize and humanize these terms, when we talk about pansexuals I can say "oh, my friend Mike." That said, despite growing up with with two gay uncles, this wasn't always the case, and it wasn't until I was 25 and had moved to Florida that I met a transgender person, and saw the difficulty they had in being recognized for who they are. So I absolutely understand why this seems strange and pedantic to some. As @Davo55 brought up very humbly, it is confusing, and confusing people (aforementioned getting hung up in terminology) can keep the larger message from getting across--which you put very well.
Where I think there is value in identifying so many groups is to reinforce the fact that sexuality and gender are not binary, and give names, recognition, and power to groups of people who have existed for a long time without formally acknowledgement to further illustrate this.
The big, underlying point here (consciously and subconsciously) is to remove the stigma of "sexual deviant," and to "normalize" practices. Within this thread we've seen bestiality and age of consent being raised, the latter in particular having nothing to do with anything discussed. But it seems that when discussing different sexuality or gender models, conversation quickly seems to domino from consenting practices to criminal behavior.
In the end, yes, and I think there will be an umbrella term at some point, as one of the primary functions of language is to take complex concepts and simplify/over-simplify/bastardize/etc, them. And I do think that will be beneficial. But I think for now, with so much of this being so new in the public sphere, it's beneficial as teaching tool to call out so many groups.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. For me, gender is very much a binary matter, XX chromosomes= female, XY=male. I accept that in very rare instances, due to abnormalities, gender may be hard to determine, but we are talking about 1 in 4500 Intersex babies, extremely rare. A man can transform into a women but he will still retain his XY chromosomes and therefore still be biologically a male. All this talk of gender neutrality and gender fluidity is IMO, bullshit. You are what nature intended you to be. You might not like it, you might want to change it, but it is what it is. This is all about braking down barriers and de stigmatising, I understand that and done in the correct way, I wouldn't be so concerned. But it has now become a social engineering exercise, where kids as young as 7 are being sexualised and indoctrinated, and are being directed to gay material online. In the case of gay sex, we are talking about a practice that was outlawed around the world until relatively recently and still is in some countries, a criminal offence. So I think in that context, it is relevant to talk about other sexual practices that are presently outlawed, because the world seems to be changing extremely quickly and what may seem reprehensible at the moment could conceivably become acceptable at some stage in the future. I think we need to move back to football matters SD, where I agree with almost everything you post !
So basically, after all your waffle, you dont like Gays (amongst others!). Your arguments are like reading a rehash of 80's prejudices (and thank heavens they are now a minority view)- Some people are gay get over it!
Getting back to original post I am proud that this initiative is happening in our club. Good on you Valiants!
Roz Ward is definitely telling seven year old boys to fuck each other up the bum. That is definitely what she's doing. Completely, definitely what she's doing. The Commie perv.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Well this thread is more or less going as expected, but where is that bloke who always goes nuts at the mention of the proud valiants? I can't remember his name and I don't want to libel anyone by guessing, but you must know the one I mean.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Amazing that someone writing homophobic comments on a thread about homophobia can't think of something beginning with "h".
Well this thread is more or less going as expected, but where is that bloke who always goes nuts at the mention of the proud valiants? I can't remember his name and I don't want to libel anyone by guessing, but you must know the one I mean.
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Amazing that someone writing homophobic comments on a thread about homophobia can't think of something beginning with "h".
Struggling with D, E, H, I, J, K and Y, but I'm sure the good people of CL can come up with summing?
A = Any thing goes B = Bi C = Cottaging D = ? E = Everything (Incl. inanimate objects) F = Fingers (Woman off wrist) G= Gay H= ? I= ? J= ? K= ? L= Lesbien M= Men only N= Nothing O= Open minded P= Pansexual Q= Queer R= Rectum S= Single (Man/Woman off the wrist) T= Trans U= Undecided V= Veggie W= Women only X= XX Y= ? Z= Zooaphile
Surely B should be for bestiality (unfair to exclude those who love their animals) and P should be for polygamy which is practised by so many Moslem males. At the end of the day, all these labels are irrelevant, because if the Marxists get their way, gender fluidity will mean that we can be male in the morning, female in the afternoon and something else in the evening, and have a wonderfully varied sex life along the way.
1) As a Marxist that isn't on my agenda. I remember in Kapital where Marx...no never brought that up. 2) these labels are important because they acknowledge people, which has a huge power unto itself. 3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but LBTBQ folks are often compared to people who conduct bestiality and pedophilia, and it's a terrible slur. It's like comparing black people to monkeys. Genuinely hope you didn't know this, but it's an incredibly bigoted thing to say. 4) I'd say that we're at best drawing with homophobia. To be honest, I'd have taken a draw if you'd offered it in advance.
Good points SDAddick, especially (3) - which I agree with completely. On the other hand, and completely sincerely without wishing to appear provocative or in disagreement, do you feel that the excessive labeling of groups (I'm thinking of the evolution from LGBT to LGBTAIQ+) is doing anyone any good?
Personally I find it quite frustrating as an onlooker, because although I don't think there should ever be a requirement for an umbrella term for what essentially boils down to "Don't be a dick (and/or vagina ) and treat everyone else with the respect you'd like to enjoy yourself.", I do appreciate that there may be a need for that term in the current climate. However, when the usage and meaning of that term begins to be the focus of the debate, then I can't help but fear it's actively facilitating the avoidance of the real issues.
A very good question and good point, and while nomenclature is a hugely powerful tool in recognizing a person or people's identity (which is why gender pronouns are so important to people), when the conversation or debate simply becomes about terminology for the sake of terminology, then yes it's become a bit self defeating.
Personally, I know people who fit into categories so easier to empathize and humanize these terms, when we talk about pansexuals I can say "oh, my friend Mike." That said, despite growing up with with two gay uncles, this wasn't always the case, and it wasn't until I was 25 and had moved to Florida that I met a transgender person, and saw the difficulty they had in being recognized for who they are. So I absolutely understand why this seems strange and pedantic to some. As @Davo55 brought up very humbly, it is confusing, and confusing people (aforementioned getting hung up in terminology) can keep the larger message from getting across--which you put very well.
Where I think there is value in identifying so many groups is to reinforce the fact that sexuality and gender are not binary, and give names, recognition, and power to groups of people who have existed for a long time without formally acknowledgement to further illustrate this.
The big, underlying point here (consciously and subconsciously) is to remove the stigma of "sexual deviant," and to "normalize" practices. Within this thread we've seen bestiality and age of consent being raised, the latter in particular having nothing to do with anything discussed. But it seems that when discussing different sexuality or gender models, conversation quickly seems to domino from consenting practices to criminal behavior.
In the end, yes, and I think there will be an umbrella term at some point, as one of the primary functions of language is to take complex concepts and simplify/over-simplify/bastardize/etc, them. And I do think that will be beneficial. But I think for now, with so much of this being so new in the public sphere, it's beneficial as teaching tool to call out so many groups.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. For me, gender is very much a binary matter, XX chromosomes= female, XY=male. I accept that in very rare instances, due to abnormalities, gender may be hard to determine, but we are talking about 1 in 4500 Intersex babies, extremely rare. A man can transform into a women but he will still retain his XY chromosomes and therefore still be biologically a male. All this talk of gender neutrality and gender fluidity is IMO, bullshit. You are what nature intended you to be. You might not like it, you might want to change it, but it is what it is. This is all about braking down barriers and de stigmatising, I understand that and done in the correct way, I wouldn't be so concerned. But it has now become a social engineering exercise, where kids as young as 7 are being sexualised and indoctrinated, and are being directed to gay material online. In the case of gay sex, we are talking about a practice that was outlawed around the world until relatively recently and still is in some countries, a criminal offence. So I think in that context, it is relevant to talk about other sexual practices that are presently outlawed, because the world seems to be changing extremely quickly and what may seem reprehensible at the moment could conceivably become acceptable at some stage in the future. I think we need to move back to football matters SD, where I agree with almost everything you post !
I don't care what you think, and nor do the people whose reality you feel you can dismiss.
I know I can't and won't convince you to change your mind, so I won't bother. What I will say is that homosexuality (not to be confused with pedestery) and gender fluidity (See the "Seer" Tyresius, lauded for his wisdom in ancient Greece because he lived as both a man and a woman) are older than Jesus, older than any western stories or mythologies you can think of.
Comments
I happen to agree with you, regarding consenting adults. The problem is there are always political parties and special interest groups who want to break down even more barriers. For example the Communist Party of Great Britain want to abolish the age of consent, so it then comes down to a consenting adult and a consenting child. Inconceivable! Well that's what people would have said about gay marriage twenty years ago.
Personally, I know people who fit into categories so easier to empathize and humanize these terms, when we talk about pansexuals I can say "oh, my friend Mike." That said, despite growing up with with two gay uncles, this wasn't always the case, and it wasn't until I was 25 and had moved to Florida that I met a transgender person, and saw the difficulty they had in being recognized for who they are. So I absolutely understand why this seems strange and pedantic to some. As @Davo55 brought up very humbly, it is confusing, and confusing people (aforementioned getting hung up in terminology) can keep the larger message from getting across--which you put very well.
Where I think there is value in identifying so many groups is to reinforce the fact that sexuality and gender are not binary, and give names, recognition, and power to groups of people who have existed for a long time without formally acknowledgement to further illustrate this.
The big, underlying point here (consciously and subconsciously) is to remove the stigma of "sexual deviant," and to "normalize" practices. Within this thread we've seen bestiality and age of consent being raised, the latter in particular having nothing to do with anything discussed. But it seems that when discussing different sexuality or gender models, conversation quickly seems to domino from consenting practices to criminal behavior.
In the end, yes, and I think there will be an umbrella term at some point, as one of the primary functions of language is to take complex concepts and simplify/over-simplify/bastardize/etc, them. And I do think that will be beneficial. But I think for now, with so much of this being so new in the public sphere, it's beneficial as teaching tool to call out so many groups.
My concern, which I also tried to explain in my last point, is that bestiality and and pedophilia, and general illegal behavior, often come up in these conversations. These are commonly used as slurs. As such, it confuses that if this is known, why is the leap made to criminal behavior? It'd be like us talking about train journeys (because, you know, Charlton), and then someone talks about hijacking a train and packing it full of explosives.
She thought about it for a second and then asked "well why didn't you marry one of your friends then?"
I didn't have a good answer for that one!
Alright then, think of another sexual orientation beginning with Zed! And I'll be happy to change my list......
; )
1. Dipping a Zebra is basically being a Zooaphile.
2. I made it up.
A man can transform into a women but he will still retain his XY chromosomes and therefore still be biologically a male.
All this talk of gender neutrality and gender fluidity is IMO, bullshit. You are what nature intended you to be. You might not like it, you might want to change it, but it is what it is.
This is all about braking down barriers and de stigmatising, I understand that and done in the correct way, I wouldn't be so concerned. But it has now become a social engineering exercise, where kids as young as 7 are being sexualised and indoctrinated, and are being directed to gay material online.
In the case of gay sex, we are talking about a practice that was outlawed around the world until relatively recently and still is in some countries, a criminal offence. So I think in that context, it is relevant to talk about other sexual practices that are presently outlawed, because the world seems to be changing extremely quickly and what may seem reprehensible at the moment could conceivably become acceptable at some stage in the future.
I think we need to move back to football matters SD, where I agree with almost everything you post !
Getting back to original post I am proud that this initiative is happening in our club. Good on you Valiants!
K= Kids
I know I can't and won't convince you to change your mind, so I won't bother. What I will say is that homosexuality (not to be confused with pedestery) and gender fluidity (See the "Seer" Tyresius, lauded for his wisdom in ancient Greece because he lived as both a man and a woman) are older than Jesus, older than any western stories or mythologies you can think of.