Jump to content

Are some sexualities fake??


LGBTAtreyu

Recommended Posts

Dreamsexual

A: I'm a (X)

B: (X) is wrong term, because (definition)

A: So what term is best?

B: (Y)

A: But (Y) doesn't seem to either do justice to my experience, or to my understanding of reality.  And it sort of excludes me.

B: (X) is still incorrect

A: We'll have to agree to disagree.  I'm still gonna be an (X) whatever.  And I'm still gonna use the term (X) to describe myself because I think it works. So long as you don't have a personal problem with me being (X) we can be cool disagreeing about the label, call me whatever you want, just lets agree to be polite and sensitive about it because life is hard enough.

B: Ok, that's cool.  We can agree to disagree about the correct words, and yet be cool with each other.

 

And everyone lived happily ever after :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a very similar debate a while back. (click)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

If you want to get that pedantic, okay, I agree, I now know you think some word I have no idea of applies to you.

 

Isn't it more efficient to just use words we both agree the meaning of?

Yes, it is.  But in order to reach that level of efficiency one must first learn the term.  We are not born knowing all words that exist and can exist.

 

So you've encountered a new word.  When that happens, what do you normally do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

But what if the word hasn't been invented yet? Someone has to invent the word. No one knew what the internet was 25 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Good.  So if you can figure it out from context (you clearly have already identified it as a form of sexuality or something similar), great - and as the conversation develops you can hone or fine-tune your working defintion.

 

But if the context wasn't enough, then what would you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Really?  Ok.  Nevermind.  Who needs the drama, huh?  No worries, and if you think Ive been unfair or patronising then sorry, my communication skills aren't great :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@Telecaster68, I believe @Dreamsexual is saying if you didn't know what a word means you would ask, and then have it explained to you. While I also like streamlining, sometimes you're not going to know a word, and that doesn't necessarily mean the word in question is 'excessive' or whatever.

 

Or I could be way off the mark, but that's what I think anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 9:29 PM, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

I guess this link might be helpful.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

 

It explains the history of what psychiatrists have generally called "paraphilias" (although, some find the term offensive and have tried lobbying for a different term). It's not new; psychologists and psychologists have known about it for centuries. There have always been people who've experienced attraction to objects, fantasies, etc.

 

It's just that, likely due to the internet (i.e. people around the world, from different cultures and experiences exchanging information), sexual minority groups, just like asexuality, are becoming a bit more mainstream, raising more public awareness.

kisupure said:

Quote

OS isn't a paraphilia. Here's the paper on it from the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality: http://www.ejhs.org/volume13/ObjSexuals.htm

I think there might've been some miscommunication with my post. I didn't think I was saying that OS was a paraphilia, currently, only trying to help explain to others who thought it was a new, made-up term from today's youth that it seemed that it used to be known as a "paraphilia" centuries ago.

 

The link that you gave me says that "OS" was coined in the 1970s. So, what was it known as, before then? The Wikipedia link I gave seemed to indicate that it was initially thought of as a "paraphilia."

 

Quote

...It is important to know some history of the objectum sexuality community. In the early 1970’s, Eija-Ritta Eklof Berliner-Mauer, resident of a village in North Sweden, coined the term “objectum-sexuality.”

It does get kind of confusing, though, with Wikipedia's Obejct Sexuality page saying

(from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality)

Quote

...Object sexuality or objectophilia is a form of paraphilia focused on particular inanimate objects.

I would've thought the information would've been changed and updated, by now, if it was incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
36 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

the point at issue was whether a word could usefully be used to communicate a meaning when two people had mutually exclusive understandings of what it meant and one just insisted they were going to use it anyway.

I read it more as "we can disagree but still be civil" *shrugs*

 

@InquisitivePhilosopher It did say sexuality at one point but some twat changed it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I dont know. Some may be fake. A lot seem like “spices, that are needed for the mouth to start watering”. Or stuff that triggers. And I find it very hard to distinguish. But I do know, that a lot has to do with semantics and cultural expectations/understandings, and ways to identify and label. I do not believe there is an innate corrolation between western male homosexuality and the preference for the colour pink. (Not saying it is always conected, at all. Back up, homofobic-fobics) 

if Oneiro needs to be ‘present’ for someone to ever feel a sexual vibe going, then I will agree on the oneirosexuality. If it is just a spice that makes it more fun, then I would  fit it into, as lady gaga said in pokerface : “if it isnt rough, it isnt fun”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 2:50 PM, Dreamsexual said:

Right.  Fair enough. Since I think that indicates you're acting as a bad faith interlocutor I'll just leave it there :)

Is that something like Locutus of Borg?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
2 hours ago, Jon A. said:

Is that something like Locutus of Borg?

Lol.  Not as cool :).  Just me using pretentious language.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of trolls on aven doesn't seem too bad. Probably quite a number of confused folks, but that's ok.

 

Regarding terminology. Language is a process that's continually developing.

i.e.:

Person A discovers phenomenon X and calls it X

Person B also perceives phenomenon X and thinks X is a fine word

Person C speaks to persons A and B and hears X for the first time. C doesn't understand, looks it up in dictionary and finds nothing.

 

From here it's just statistics. How many people should agree X is a thing before it is written in the dictionary? I don't have the answer, but new words are introduced every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Or - how long should someone persevere in trying to insist everyone else uses their made up word instead of a perfectly good existing one before they give up?

Do you have an example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Fluxsexual.

Can't say I ever heard of it :)

 

What does it mean?  Who made it up?  Who is insisting everyone use it? What is the better already existing word?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

... which underlines my point. Do a search on AVEN, you'll find a hardcore of people who are convinced it's a sexual orientation.  It means 'wildly veering feelings about sexuality', as far as I can tell. If you wanted one word for the sake of conversation, 'unsure' would do it.

So, there's already a group of people which use the term.

 

And obviously they feel it captures something more accurately than 'unsure'.  I think I can see why they might prefer their term to 'unsure', as 'unsure' doesn't even fit the standard sexuality label format.  Surely 'unsure' doesn't really mean the same as 'wildly varying'-sexuality.

 

Obviously, you and they disagree about it being a sexual orientation.  Why?  And why is it a problem?

 

Was as it created on tumblr?

 

Was it made simply because someone had a particular 'mood'?

 

Do they insist other people use that term?

 

And can you think of another example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

@Telecaster68 @CBC

I guess all this boils down to two things, then:

 

a) what is the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual preference?

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

 

I'd be curious to hear a fluxsexual's side on this.

What other made-up sexualities were you thinking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, CBC said:

Well there's sapiosexual...

Lol, wtf is that ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

@Telecaster68

 

So you disagree that it boils down to these:

 

a) what is the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual preference?

b) who determines what is the right word for someone to use of themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm starting to get the impression you're arguing a point from the basis of very little actual information here.

Yes, I don't know anything.  Hence why I'm asking questions.  Seems the reasonable thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, CBC said:

 

As opposed to those of us turned on by people we think are stupid as a fucking brick...?

I don't think that's what the term implies, or at least I woukdnt have assumed it.  It would, at first glance to me, communicate that someone is only sexually interested in highly intelligent people. 

 

Why is this not a 'proper' term?

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Or, you could do as I suggested and do the research yourself. Google is fantastically useful for this.

Why go through the effort when I have an expert in conversation with me?  I'd only research it wrong anyway.  I'd rather interrogate the one making the provocative claims directly in front of me so as to better understand where they are coming from.

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

What if I determine the right word for myself is 'helicopter'

In the context of a discussion on their sexuality?  I'd ask them if they meant they are attracted only to helicopters as a narrow form of objectum.  

 

What would your response be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Why challenge a point you don't know anything about in the first place?

Because that's how it normally seems to work.  Someone makes an interesting and challenging point, and because I don't already know everything about it, I ask questions.  Again, it seems reasonable.  If it doesn't to you, fair enough, but I think I'm ok to ask question or challenge points so long as I'm not rude or aggressive about it.  I just thought conversation and discussion worked that way.

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, in any context

I thought we were talking about made-up sexualities?  Im not interested in discussing anything else at this time.

 

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

in your view no-one can be challenged over what they choose to call themselves

Where did I say that?  I don't believe that.  You're misrepresenting me.

 

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

but whether that needs its own term is another matter

Indeed.  That seems a fair discussion to have.  But if there currently exists no term that adequately captures the idea that someone's sexual identity is defined by only finding highly intelligent people attractive, why would the creation of such a term be problematic for others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

For a while, I had something like gynomammosalsesexual in my description, which is compound of 'women, boobs and funny' I made up after two minutes googling. I regularly got PMs asking me what this orientation was.

So you just made up a joke orientation.  That's cool.  But I don't see the relevance here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
3 minutes ago, CBC said:

What's wrong with "I'm attracted to intelligent people"?

Wrong?  No one is saying that would be wrong.

But what is wrong with 'sapiosexual'?

 

Like, I don't think anything is wrong either with 'I'm attracted to men' or 'I'm homosexual'.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

 I think you and @PaganUnicorn should have a discussion somewhere, so you could question each other endlessly till one of your heads exploded.

Why are you now insulting paganUnicorn?  How is that helping?

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, normally people see a proposition, and think either 'hmmm I know nothing about that, I shall find out more since it's very easy to do so', or 'that d

I guess I'm different, then.  Nevermind.  Not a problem, is it, to have someone ask you questions after making a provocative statement. You can always choose not to respond.

 

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The concept we were discussing was whether people's assertions about their labels were beyond challenge.

That's not what I was discussing.  

 

5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

In all goodwill, are you aware you frequently come over as quite trolly in your posts,

I was not aware that I came over as a troll frequently in my posts, no.  Is this a widely held perception on this forum?  I had no idea.

 

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's the combination of perseverating, weird logic, repeated demands for widely accepted things to be argued from first principles and/or examples, claims you didn't say things that you did say, and goalpost shifting.

I don't know what 'perseverating' is.  I didn't realise my logic was weird.  I'm not sure why arguing from first principles is wrong. I don't believe I make any false or lying claims (certainly not deliberately).  I don't believe I ever shift goalposts (again, certainly not deliberately).

 

Not sure how to respond.  You clearly believe I'm a troll.  Not sure what to say to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

'I'm not', if you're not...

But why would you believe me when you've already responded to me as if I was?  How could I ever convince you at this point?  And if you're not the only one who thinks this, but it's a general perception across the forum, then there's something seriously wrong with my posting style.  

 

I am only ever sincere as far as I'm concerned.  But this is obviously not communicated well.  I'm not sure how I can communicate more clearly?  Neither am I sure of your motives at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

They can discuss what it  means as much as they like, but it's not an orientation, in the sense of preferring to have sex with men, or women, or either, or none. It's a description of a state of mind, so suffixing it -sexual is overclaiming, and asserting that it's an orientation is meaningless, pointless outside that very small group of people, and makes asexuals look even more like special snowflakes than they already do.

This is pretty much the essence of gatekeeping. A minority group is most easily embraced by a majority group if they keep it simple as possible. If everyone who isn't sexually attracted to real people calls themselves simply ace it will be easier to be acknowledged as a group by the rest of humanity. Personally I can tolerate some niche words, but using these words outside of very specific contexts makes it difficult to relate. I guess in a sense you could compare it to slang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...