-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A happy life
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
That's you. As they say, "You be you".
So I'll be me, as crazy as I may seem and let others be themselves, as crazy as they may seem to me.
As long as nobody's stepping on any toes.
"Crazy" people don't bother me as I figure I am just as crazy to someone out there.
Last edited:
It all depends upon how one uses words. To some, an adult having sex with someone below the age of consent is a paedophile, even if that age is one where perhaps 25% of the females have already had sex. And where paedophilia really means sexual relations between an adult and a pre-pubescent. But to the professionals involved with paedophilia, they see more adults who would not be classed as true paedophiles being sexually involved with pre-pubescents than those who would be so classed. And usually being because of opportunism, marriage difficulties, or other such factors. So perhaps such things are not so obvious - unless one wanted to simplify matters down to the meaningless.
PureX
Veteran Member
Minding our own business is in many ways a gift to those around us. Having the freedom to make our own choices and live our own lives is important.
But there is a kind of 'trade off' involved in that we do not live alone on our own islands. We are a social-cooperative species. So how we choose to live as individuals will have an effect on those living around us. And so with our freedom, then, comes a responsibility toward the well being and freedom of our fellow humans. And to ignore this responsibility is not only excessively selfish, but is dangerous to humanity as a collective species.
So I think we need to be of dual mind about the idea of our own autonomy and freedom. On the one hand it is our right and that is important, while on the other hand we are beholding to each other for our well-being and our mutual survival. And we are obliged to contribute to that collective well-being.
But there is a kind of 'trade off' involved in that we do not live alone on our own islands. We are a social-cooperative species. So how we choose to live as individuals will have an effect on those living around us. And so with our freedom, then, comes a responsibility toward the well being and freedom of our fellow humans. And to ignore this responsibility is not only excessively selfish, but is dangerous to humanity as a collective species.
So I think we need to be of dual mind about the idea of our own autonomy and freedom. On the one hand it is our right and that is important, while on the other hand we are beholding to each other for our well-being and our mutual survival. And we are obliged to contribute to that collective well-being.
Classic semantic argument. Nobody is in disagreement about what is real, just what to call it. You agree that some men have sex only with women, some only with men, and some with both. Another poster who agrees with that and you are ostensibly disagreeing about what is what - what they really are - when you are actually disagreeing about what to call them.
Use whatever nomenclature you prefer, although not all is equally expressive or logical. When I have three words and three distinct concepts, I like to assign them in a 1:1 correspondence, so I will call those three groups heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual respectively. I agree with you that bisexual people have gay sex, but not that they be called gay. Still, I don't mind that you choose differently. Why would I? It's just nomenclature, and if your choices confuse or offend, that's either OK with you or you'll modify them.
Your argument that if somebody has sex with adults and children, he is still a pedophile like those who only have sex with children was interesting. I agree with that. But the former is not only a pedophile, and if there were a word to describe pedophiles also attracted to adults, like disexual, then we would call such a person a disexual. It is not permission or approbation of pedophilia, merely descriptive.
Is this relevant to this discussion? What do we call somebody who eats vegan some of the time, perhaps when dining out with a vegan, or to periodically purge his system of imagined meat toxins, and is an omnivore the rest? I don't think there's a word for it, and I don't think there needs to be. This is an omnivore, not an omnivore that is also a vegan.
You and the other poster don't have to agree on usage to understand one another. It's enough for her to know that when you call somebody gay that he might be bisexual, and for you to know that when she says gay, she does not mean bisexual. Disagreement resolved.
I don't know. I have found plenty of times I don't actually know who I'm talking to in real life, either.
People can misrepresent. Its more common they do online, but they can certainly do it in person, too.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then why are you posting here at RF?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
What if a man has sex with a woman and a man at the same time?
That would probably be described as "lucky". For him that is. Two women for me!
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Not really. The second, yes. The first, wouldn't you need to have some kind of physical reaction to "perform"? Maybe I've misunderstood you on this?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
It all depends upon how one uses words. To some, an adult having sex with someone below the age of consent is a paedophile, even if that age is one where perhaps 25% of the females have already had sex. And where paedophilia really means sexual relations between an adult and a pre-pubescent. But to the professionals involved with paedophilia, they see more adults who would not be classed as true paedophiles being sexually involved with pre-pubescents than those who would be so classed. And usually being because of opportunism, marriage difficulties, or other such factors. So perhaps such things are not so obvious - unless one wanted to simplify matters down to the meaningless.
I agree, particularly about the "age of consent" thing. In England the age of consent is 16. Here in the USA it's 18. If an 18 yo has sex with a 16 yo in England it's OK. In the USA it's rape. If they do it (continually!) on a ship crossing the Atlantic does it gradually become rape, or suddenly at the USA border? I ask because the 16 yo needs to know when to call for help.
Heyo
Veteran Member
People have physical reactions with inanimate objects, so ...
Alien826
No religious beliefs
This is what I was commenting on.
"You can have "gay sex" without being gay".
If someone is having sex with (the help of) an inanimate object, he/she will still need to get aroused, no? In the case of the physical object, the mental image would be the thing, either homosexual or heterosexual, which would determine the gayness or otherwise, it seems to me. .