Can sexuality change over time?

Most people don't differ between sexual attraction and romantic attraction, which is really annoying.

 

Brother that is a whole other thread, one of which I've tried elsewhere.

 

I don't believe you.

 

Having sex with someone I'm not attracted to would be repulsive to me.

 

I don't think there's neutrality in this. So yes that's what I'm saying

I didn't make a claim. I simply doubt yours.

 

Rape is absolutely about power, but it's about sex too.

 

The logic appears to be
XYZ must cause ABC because I can't think of another explanation
And thusly assert certainty based upon ignorance

IMO It is more accurate to simply acknowledge that there are some things that we cannot explain... like for example weird fetishes.

 

Arousal is a biological reaction in true it's often associated with attraction it isn't necessarily caused by attraction. Just ask any adolescent boy who ever had an awkward erection

 

Just for the purpose of discussion... let's start with the presumption that there is a wide diversity of people, and that the intricacies of human behavior is at least least as complicated as a pet dog

Now, suppose a dog bites someone.. do we know why? We can speculate, but not much more
Suppose a female dog mounts another female dog.., can we do more than speculate about causality?

Sometimes I am walking mydog and there is another dog across the street. Sometimes my dog finds that dog attractive, or offensive, or boring, Other dog owners have similar experience
... and none of us can explain what our dogs react as they do.
.


It seems to me that we cannot definitively identify exactly why our pet dogs act as they do.

I have to wonder why we assume that we are better able to fully understand the behavior of some random human who we know almost nothing about vs a pet dog that is our best friend?

 

Key words: to you. And no one is arguing that it would not be repulsive to you. But that doesn't mean that having sex with someone they are not attracted to would be repulsive to everyone. Which is the support point to the concept that one can Ben homosexual and still engage in straight sex or heterosexual and engage in gay sex and in neither case be bisexual.

 

I disagree. If you engage in sex with both genders willingly more than experimentation you're bisexual.

Telling yourself you aren't really attracted to them is just denial.

 

Now let me remind you what I said:

So every person you work with you are either attracted to or disgusted by. Every food you eat you are either attracted to or disgusted by. Every game you play with a child you are either attracted to or disgusted by. I find that incredible and rather sad really. It's one extreme or the other.

Oh really?

Claim.

Claim.

Claim, but at least this one isn't a complete blanket statement.

Three claims here

Two there.

Another claim

Two more claims.

And that is only going back two pages. You make plenty of claims.

 

If I take a beer bottle and ram it repeatedly up your arse is that about sex?,

 

You're moving the goal posts. Having sex with someone that you aren't attracted to would be repulsive. I don't believe there is any neutrality in only that regard.

Those are opinions.

 

Fetishes and sexuality are not the same thing. Your sexuality or sexual orientation is what gender(s) you are attracted to. Your gender identity is the gender that you feel you are regardless of what sex your body is. Fetishes are those objections or actions that is linked to sexual satisfaction. They are three separate and distinct things.

 

For you yes. It would be much easier to hit me with it.

 

Fetishism is absolutely part of sexuality.

Sexuality is not the assume thing as sexual orientation. It can be but not always.

They are part of sexuality. You admitted it just above.

 

No I am not. I have just shown you that it is possible to be engaged in something and be neither attracted or repulsed by it. Attraction and repulsion are subjective values that only those experiencing them can reliably relate. You cannot reliably claim whether an individual is repulsed, attracted or neither to a given person, object or action. You can note how you can't comprehend how they are that way. You can do studies and say a portion of the population is either attracted or repulsed by a given action. But you can't claim it universal. And you certainly can't claim that this is the only exception where an individual cannot feel neutrally about. Well you can claim it, but it holds no factual truth. If it is a factual truth then you can bring the evidence to bear.

You didn't state them as opinions, you stated them as claims, as if they were factual.

 

Yes you have. The discussionwas never about there existing people you aren't attracted to but don't find repulsive. It was about having sex with those people.

I did. You simply took them as claims. I did not imply that they were factual. You inferred that.

Perhaps you ought not jump to conclusions.

 

That is what I have been saying all along. That one can have sex with a person that they are neither attracted to nor repulsed by. It is a physical possibility and you have nothing to show that it cannot be emotionally done.

Perhaps you ought to learn English grammar better. The statements quoted are phrased as claims and factual statements. Nowhere are you using opinion phrases such as "I believe..." or "I think..." or "in my opinion..." Maybe your intent was to imply them as opinions, but the language used defeated that purpose.

 

You know of course that I was responding to the post that was quoted in my post which specifically was speculating on fetishes?

In response to your post... yes I recognize the distinctions that you raise

Now can you provide me a simple answer to this question

Are any of those three things completely understood in a way similar to Newtonian physics?

And if we do not well understand these phenomena, ' aren't we just blathering on about phenomena that are not well understood but which are rife with strident preconceptions, bias, and moral judgements

Because my friend in my quick perusal of this thread I have yet to find any discussion that remotely approximates an evidence based scientific discussion

 

I am left handed. My left hand accomplishes the same things the right hand of others does. It accomplishes what it was naturally intended to do. You can do anything you want to i guess and call it sex. You can play in excrement and call it foreplay I suppose.

 

One could have sex with a dog. It doesn't mean the act isn't repulsive.

Perhaps you should take your own advise. I posted statements that expressed my opinion and now have made that clear twice.

I didn't use phrases such as "known fact" or "science dictates." I cleared up your confusion twice now. If you want to chastise me for not speaking the way you wish me to, I invite you to jump in a lake. If you're done being a language Nazi we can return to the discussion.

You made an assumption that was advantages to your position. I caught that mistake. You need to own it if you have any integrity.

 

Depends what and who you're reading. Plenty of seriously dodgy science has been accepted as truth in the past, simply because the right scientists (or even just the loudest scientists) happened to align on a 'preferred' outcome.

 

why and how is it absurd?