View Single Post
Old 08-13-2015, 06:11 AM   #5
loopytheone
Administrator
 
loopytheone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Robinhoodland
Posts: 3,349
loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.loopytheone has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthine View Post
It could maybe be argued from a very evolutionary point of view. For any kind of living thing, propagating the species is the primary goal. So even though humans are dramatically more complex than most other living things, there's still that instinctual "COME ON PUT YOUR PENIS IN THINGS WE CAN'T DIE OUT" or the female equivalent lurking somewhere in the psyche. Basic needs and instinctual impulses can blur together, perhaps. Not that that's an excuse or justification. Being non-religious, that evolutionary suggestion is really the only way I can comprehend how so many people are so extremely anti-abortion.

As for an original contribution, it sometimes annoys me that people continue to be so misunderstanding when it comes to bisexuality or pansexuality. Is it that unfathomable to think that someone could be genuinely attracted more than one gender? I'm not a "fake lesbian" or a "fake hetero" , nor am I inferior to people who are strictly hetero- or homo-sexual.
Actually, my original point was from a purely evolutionary point of view (I'm a biologist, after all, and pretty much all of that subject is based on evolution). Also, there are plenty of species that have members who don't biologically reproduce because helping your parent's produce more children is actually as genetically important as reproducing yourself. Your siblings = 50% DNA shared, your children = 50% DNA shared. I just really don't agree that sexual desires are a need for anybody. Nobody will die without it. Everybody will die without oxygen/water/food. Not saying that sexual desires can't be hugely strong or even as strong as hunger etc for some people. Just that they aren't NEEDS and because of that, they are different and not comparable. *shrugs*

Oh god, the bi/pan thing, yes, I understand that so much! I'm panromantic and a lot of people struggle to get their minds around that. They prefer to label me as straight (I've never had a proper relationship with a girl or non-binary person) and insist it is the truth. People suck sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by balletguy View Post
I am a closeted cd, and I have been with a few guys. Even after labeling myself I really hate labels....I would not really consider myself bi I just like to explore and have a good time. My annoyance is that even in 2015 once some puts a label on you it sticks. I guess its just small minded people doing it but its still an annoyance.
That is annoying. It is up to the individual person how/whether or not they label themselves. If you don't feel comfortable being labelled then that is up to you, not anybody else to decide.


As for other annoyances that I've thought of! People who don't understand that asexual =/= celibate. I remember having a conversation with my mother (who knows I'm asexual but keeps it hidden like a filthy secret) about sex and she made a comment about how I 'wouldn't understand, being asexual' with the implication that I must also be a virgin. I pointed out to her that I am not, and I have been in sexual relationships with people. And she just couldn't get her head around that at all. She tried to tell me I'm not 'really asexual' or 'can't be asexual'. As though she knows more about my orientation than I do. I don't get how people can easily claim somebody is a 'moneygrabber' or only with somebody for their money/things without batting an eyelid but the idea that an asexual person could have sex with somebody despite not finding them sexually attractive? Mind = blown.
loopytheone is offline   Reply With Quote