Jump to content
LGBTAtreyu

Are some sexualities fake??

Recommended Posts

kisupure
4 hours ago, 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.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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 :)

That's fine as long as A is only using the word in their own head. The second they try to use it to communicate (which is pretty much what words are for), they'll fail to communicate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by Heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I have no idea what the word means. Communication has not occurred.

 

2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

 In the example they communicated fine, they just disagreed over the validity or appropriateness of the label.

No, they disagreed what it meant. It's like saying 'I'm eating a malus domestica' and the audience saying 'oh you're having a banana'. No meaning has been transferred from one mind to the other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Posted (edited)

.
 

Edited by Heart

Share this post


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

Silly.  Limited communication has occured because you now know I sexually identify as (prefix you don't recognise+sexual), the other words and grammar, and context were all communicated just fine.  Stop trying to just win an Internet argument.

 

Now, if you're interested you could ask what the word means, or look it up.  And then, if you thought it a silly label, we could disgaree about that, or try and define it more clearly, or disagree that it applied to me or whatever... You know, a conversation, lol :)

 

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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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?

Figure it out from context. 

 

For instance, if I'd never heard the word 'patronise' before, I could probably figure it out from the rest of the sentence.

 

Could you just drop the faux-Socratic dialogue and make your point, please?

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I have no idea what point you think you're making.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Posted (edited)

.

Edited by Heart
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Nope, still no idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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 :)

Share this post


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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Well I thought that too, and I agree but 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 didn't see where his Socratic dialogue was going when it came to that point, so I was genuinely trying to cut to the chase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InquisitivePhilosopher
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.

Share this post


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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

Fair enough. I read it as a retread of the AVEN favourite 'this word can have two mutually exclusive meanings because otherwise someone might feel miffed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrDane

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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon A.
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?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandark

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Fluxsexual.

Share this post


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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can't say I ever heard of it

... 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.

 

Terms like that proliferate, so insisting that the newest pseudo-greco-latinate term someone on Tumblr has invented for whatever mood they're in should be given credence just makes asexuality in general look ever more special snowflakish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...