|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 29, 2018 4:41:21 GMT
Maybe "other" refers to extreme fetishism. Like I saw a documentary about a man who could only become aroused by rubbing balloons all over his body. Where the balloons inflated or deflated? If they were inflated, maybe rubbing them on his body (what with the static electricity that would generate) got him "charged up". I think they were inflated.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 29, 2018 4:50:31 GMT
How about The Wayward Cloud? "The Wayward Cloud"... Where do you find this stuff, Fox in the Snow? I guess you do have an affinity for Japanese pop culture, but the whole watermelon connection makes all this just extra wild, cause "The Wayward Cloud" seems wild enough. You also seem to be a very in sync type person. I'm sure this is an unnecessary question, Fox, but are you familiar with the Japanese 90s Pop Group, "Pizzicato Five"? I love their music. The Wayward Cloud is actually Taiwanese. I’m a big fan of slow/minimal cinema so through that I discovered director Tsai-Ming Liang. The basic framework of The Wayward Cloud is quite similar to alot of his other work, a slow moving character drama made up almost entirely of “arty” Antonioni-esque long-takes, it just throws in some pretty explicit sex scenes (the main character is a low-budet porn actor) and high camp musical numbers. Needless to say it is a very weird wild film. Yes, I’m a big fan of P5!
|
|
|
Post by QueenB on Sept 29, 2018 6:40:00 GMT
Heterosexual
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Sept 29, 2018 12:49:01 GMT
Straight, to me there is no other creation more beautiful than a beautiful woman. So if she isn't beautiful, are you still attracted to them? Well I have to find them beautiful to be attracted to them in the first place, I'm a very visual guy if that makes any sense.
|
|
skribb
Sophomore
IMDb since June 2005
@skribb
Posts: 767
Likes: 204
|
Post by skribb on Sept 29, 2018 13:05:22 GMT
OK. So Bi - attracted to both male and female at any given time? Pan - attracted to male, female and trans/intersex or any other variations? Undecided - unsure yet? Fluid - attracted to male, female (and possibly others) but it changes depending on time/circumstances? Ommi (did you mean Omni?) - ? Queer - ? yes I meant Omni. There is a difference between Pan and Omni. And the way I understand it Queer is any/all of it, kinda against a specific label. If you ask me, its starting to get very difficult. I would just say I am sexual. Thats it. Dont really see a need for further subcategory for myself. pan- word-forming element meaning "all, every, whole, all-inclusive," from Greek pan ----------------- omni- word-forming element meaning "all," from Latin omni-say what now? pansexual (which is just another way of saying bisexual) No. I'll disregard your notion of asexuality being mental illness because I don't have time for idiocy
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 29, 2018 14:30:39 GMT
yes I meant Omni. There is a difference between Pan and Omni. And the way I understand it Queer is any/all of it, kinda against a specific label. If you ask me, its starting to get very difficult. I would just say I am sexual. Thats it. Dont really see a need for further subcategory for myself. pan- word-forming element meaning "all, every, whole, all-inclusive," from Greek pan ----------------- omni- word-forming element meaning "all," from Latin omni-say what now? yes I understand the roots of the words and its meaning. But however odd it may be, the way I understand the meaning in which these words seem to be used today in regard with sexuality is: Omnisexual: sexually accepting of any sex and of any their identification (gender), kinda like "I acknowledge your sex and your identification but still like you, however you were born and identify" Pansexual: sexually accepting of any sex, but doesnt really subscribe to genders "i like you and gender identification is not a thing I recognize so why should it matter" (gender blind?)
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 29, 2018 14:35:32 GMT
Nora I’ve heard pan and omni described as more or less the same thing, including by the other poster I asked in this thread. Further investigation came up with the difference being omni is attracted to all genders, but still “sees” gender while pan is attracted to everyone and disregards or doesn’t “see” gender. But some definitions of bi included all genders too which would then arguably negate the need for omni. yes i found the same definition for omni/pan. but i dont really have an opinion on the accuracy and use of all the labels. like i said, for me there is simply no need to put a specific label on my sexuality. i dont want to take away that need from other people, should they have it. but i myself dont feel it. if you think about it, would you feel the need to have a label for your aesthetic, racial or body type sexual preferences? I am sure all of our brains produce some kind preferences but why put a label/category on it? lets just live it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 29, 2018 15:38:10 GMT
I'm homosexual. And what does "other" constitute? Bestiality? Necrophilia? Would also be interested in what "other" refers to. Even "pan" seems to be stretching it. Same with the Q (queer) in LGBTIQ."Queer" is just an attitude, Fox in the Snow. When it comes down to basic mechanics, it has no separate meaning. Does the "I" in LGBTIQ stand for " I'm not sure"?
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Sept 29, 2018 15:38:41 GMT
One idiot is either mentally or physically ill and is "asexual" which is not even a sexual orientation (mind you, this fool just declined to state their sexual orientation. He/she still has one.) Well that's an incredibly ignorant and rude thing to say. What makes you think asexuality is made up? It doesn't seem all that farfetched to me. I see no reason why it can't be a real thing. There are far more bizarre things in our world than that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 29, 2018 15:43:39 GMT
So at this point 72% are heterosexual. 19% are gay, bisexual or pansexual (which is just another way of saying bisexual) - so 19% are queer. One idiot is either mentally or physically ill and is "asexual" which is not even a sexual orientation (mind you, this fool just declined to state their sexual orientation. He/she still has one.) 6% are lying and said "none of the above".No, they didn't. They chose "other", yet once again you hijack the thread and make it be about your own dubious sensibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Sept 29, 2018 15:51:29 GMT
No. I'll disregard your notion of asexuality being mental illness because I don't have time for idiocy Pansexual refers to sexual attraction to all regardless of gender - i.e. bisexual. There's no need to complicate something rather simple. Or are you just upset that "bisexual" doesn't encompass your desire to hump your dog? From what I understand, Bisexual = attracted to both male and females Pansexual = attracted to attractive people, gender is irrelevant So it's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
|
|
skribb
Sophomore
IMDb since June 2005
@skribb
Posts: 767
Likes: 204
|
Post by skribb on Sept 29, 2018 15:54:27 GMT
Yes, i understand you have the intelligence of a 12 year old. EDIT: naturally, bisexuality does not encompass zoosexuality, because bisexuality refers to human-human sexuality, not interspecies sexuality. Pansexual: sexually accepting of any sex, but doesnt really subscribe to genders "i like you and gender identification is not a thing I recognize so why should it matter" (gender blind?) well i guess i'm not pan at all then. by the same token those people should then argue that "there is no such thing as political affiliation so i can vote for any party i want and it doesn't matter". or am I misconstruing your definition?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 29, 2018 16:31:44 GMT
Pansexual: sexually accepting of any sex, but doesnt really subscribe to genders "i like you and gender identification is not a thing I recognize so why should it matter" (gender blind?) well i guess i'm not pan at all then. by the same token those people should then argue that "there is no such thing as political affiliation so i can vote for any party i want and it doesn't matter". or am I misconstruing your definition? not my definition at all, just what i researched. and yes by the same token people who like any/all political opinion and maybe dont recognize it as different and dont care which they vote for could call themselves pan-political.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 29, 2018 16:46:05 GMT
No, they didn't. They chose "other", yet once again you hijack the thread and make it be about your own dubious sensibilities. Okay Mister Know-It-All, Miss Thaaang ( <<< [queer eyes]), please explain to me what are these other "sexual orientations"? List them. WTF else is there but those listed? I don't know what comes under "other" and that's why I asked in an earlier post the specific question "what does 'other' constitute?" You can go back and read what I wrote. Then, later, I suggested/wondered if maybe 'other' referred to some form of extreme fetishism, in which case - and with all that sexual knowledge and bravado you like to work into every other post in that super indiscreet way you have, you should already know this - is contingent on an inanimate object, and objects don't have gender (and please don't bring up how they do in French and Spanish or Portuguese or I might barf on my roommate's keyboard). Gameboy, it's less what you say, then how you say it... Consistently calling people "Fools", "mentally or physically ill", "idiots", "ill-informed" and saying things like "I already told you the answer" and "understand now?", like you're the keeper of knowledge - this is not going to be the thing that makes people think you know what you are talking about; it's going to be the thing that makes people think that you're stuck on yourself. You come across as very superior, whether you know it or not. And if you do do this on purpose, then don't expect that people aren't going to want to challenge you or bring you down a peg or two. And when you call me "Mister Know-It-All", well, that is some extensive projecting on your part. You never present your responses with a hint of doubt or humility or modesty. Ever. And so, for me, it becomes about you being so pompous all the time and the way you talk down to people. You really don't seem to engage - you just like to pose and pontificate. And, "queer" is not the end all be all encapsulation of homosexual experience and identity. If you want to own this for yourself, then more power to you, but don't presume to force your ideology on other people. You are not above enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 30, 2018 0:53:58 GMT
I was born in the county of Essex so that would make me Essexual.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 30, 2018 1:15:27 GMT
I was born in the county of Essex so that would make me Essexual. Essexual sounds awesome. I lived in Barking, Essex for 6 months. Am I also a bit Essexual?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 30, 2018 1:27:48 GMT
I was born in the county of Essex so that would make me Essexual. Essexual sounds awesome. I lived in Barking, Essex for 6 months. Am I also a bit Essexual? Barking is also a London borough (part of Greater London) so let’s just say it’s complicated. I was born and raised in East Ham (just across the River Roding from Barking) and that’s definitely not in Essex anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 30, 2018 1:32:00 GMT
Essexual sounds awesome. I lived in Barking, Essex for 6 months. Am I also a bit Essexual? Barking is also a London borough (part of Greater London) so let’s just say it’s complicated. I was born and raised in East Ham (just across the River Roding from Barking) and that’s definitely not in Essex anymore. My friend lived in East Ham. I did often visit him as it was not very far. Seems like quite a few Pakistani restaurants are in the area.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 30, 2018 2:36:32 GMT
I don't know what comes under "other" and that's why I asked in an earlier post the specific question "what does 'other' constitute?" You can go back and read what I wrote. Then, later, I suggested/wondered if maybe 'other' referred to some form of extreme fetishism, in which case - and with all that sexual knowledge and bravado you like to work into every other post in that super indiscreet way you have, you should already know this - is contingent on an inanimate object, and objects don't have gender (and please don't bring up how they do in French and Spanish or Portuguese or I might barf on my roommate's keyboard). Gameboy, it's less what you say, then how you say it... Consistently calling people "Fools", "mentally or physically ill", "idiots", "ill-informed" and saying things like "I already told you the answer" and "understand now?", like you're the keeper of knowledge - this is not going to be the thing that makes people think you know what you are talking about; it's going to be the thing that makes people think that you're stuck on yourself. You come across as very superior, whether you know it or not. And if you do do this on purpose, then don't expect that people aren't going to want to challenge you or bring you down a peg or two. And when you call me "Mister Know-It-All", well, that is some extensive projecting on your part. You never present your responses with a hint of doubt or humility or modesty. Ever. And so, for me, it becomes about you being so pompous all the time and the way you talk down to people. You really don't seem to engage - you just like to pose and pontificate. And, "queer" is not the end all be all encapsulation of homosexual experience and identity. If you want to own this for yourself, then more power to you, but don't presume to force your ideology on other people. You are not above enlightenment. I guess the secret is all in the sauce, and I know there are many times when I can get up on my highhorse. Gamey just has confidence in his own life experiences and he does challenge me with his perceptions and I also have to take the time in some instances to read a few times of what he writes, so I can assimilate his point and then filter it through my own lens. I will often challenge his pov, but I also like to keep flexible, because of his intelligence. I don't feel he often means maliciously what he writes and has a droll and sarcastic wit. I know I can also be malicious at times, if I feel it is warranted. I like gameboy a lot. Definitely a very interesting poster. I agree he could put people off with "fools" and "idiots" comments but if you talk to him for a long time you get that he doesn't mean anything bad. It's just his style. Though I disagree with him on few topics, particularly on his not so kind views on trans people. But I definitely realise that not everyone is supposed to think like me on an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Sept 30, 2018 13:20:23 GMT
Well I have to find them beautiful to be attracted to them in the first place, I'm a very visual guy if that makes any sense. I can't comment on heterosexuality towards the female gender, being 100% pure homo. Most people would be visual and ALL taste is subjective. I have seen men I have found attractive, with pig ugly women that I couldn't possibly understand why they would or could even go there. The sexual dynamic of the hetero, operates in a completely totally different realm from my homo perspective. It sounds like you go after attractive looking women— which I can fully appreciate on a visually aesthetic level just not sexual—but may I ask, would you go with 'anything', just for the act of sexual intimacy? /would you go with 'anything', just for the act of sexual intimacy?/ I don't know about 'anything' I don't just have sex for the sake of having sex, it's not about quantity its about quality for me.
|
|