Gay Bashing

[Shadow Wolf]

Thanks. No one but loser trolls online ever says **** like that to me, certainly not to my face. I actually tend to make cis men feel insecure. And other ones want to fight me. That's how you know you're accepted as a man, socially.

I also don't broadcast being trans, either, since it's no one's business unless I choose to tell you.

Here is pretty much the only place I'm this open about it, because it's often relevant to threads.
Outside of here it would be too exhausting and tiring trying to keep up such a thing instead of just being who we are.

 

[Skywalker]

To attempt to explain endless contradictions and opposing things.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thanks. No one but loser trolls online ever says **** like that to me, certainly not to my face. I actually tend to make cis men feel insecure. And other ones want to fight me. That's how you know you're accepted as a man, socially.

I also don't broadcast being trans, either, since it's no one's business unless I choose to tell you.

Here is pretty much the only place I'm this open about it, because it's often relevant to threads.
Outside of here it would be too exhausting and tiring trying to keep up such a thing instead of just being who we are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Here is pretty much the only place I'm this open about it, because it's often relevant to threads.
Outside of here it would be too exhausting and tiring trying to keep up such a thing instead of just being who we are.

I'm totally with you there. I don't see trans as an identity. I'm just a guy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Make another thread and I will weight it down with Biblical contradictions until Gehenna comes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm totally with you there. I don't see trans as an identity. I'm just a guy.

Yup. Being a trans-woman, that seems odd, bizarre, almost like Eddie Izzard's "****ing weirdo transvestite." I'm just a woman.

 

[Audie]

God created Adam and Eve. He made mankind.
(Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth. . .

Sorry- ah, it was the great raven. I heard about that.

 

[nPeace]

@Unveiled Artist if you are claiming to be talking about science, please provide the science paper on the consensus and the facts.
So far you are making unsupported claims that are philosophical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Unveiled Artist if you are claiming to be talking about science, please provide the science paper on the consensus and the facts.
So far you are making unsupported claims that are philosophical.

I gave you link on physical attraction from a scientific point of view. I looked up your biblical sites, did you open mine?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry- ah, it was the great raven. I heard about that.

Pretty sure it was either Hermes or Loki. How else do you explain us?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Unveiled Artist if you are claiming to be talking about science, please provide the science paper on the consensus and the facts.
So far you are making unsupported claims that are philosophical.

I tried to find one that wasn't biased. Here it is again The neuroendocrinology of sexual attraction - PubMed

Sexual attraction has two components: Emission of sexually attractive stimuli and responsiveness to these stimuli. In rodents, olfactory stimuli are necessary but not sufficient for attraction. We argue that body odors are far superior to odors from excreta (urine, feces) as sexual attractants. Body odors are produced by sebaceous glands all over the body surface and in specialized glands. In primates, visual stimuli, for example the sexual skin, are more important than olfactory. The role of gonadal hormones for the production of and responsiveness to odorants is well established. Both the androgen and the estrogen receptor α are important in male as well as in female rodents. Also in primates, gonadal hormones are necessary for the responsiveness to sexual attractants. In males, the androgen receptor is sufficient for sustaining responsiveness. In female non-human primates, estrogens are needed, whereas androgens seem to contribute to responsiveness in women.

The rest you'd need to have an account.

The nature of attraction and the info above has nothing to do with the sex of the individual in relation and definition of the nature of how attraction works....

 

[Skywalker]

Make another thread and I will weight it down with Biblical contradictions until Gehenna comes.

I tried to find one that wasn't biased. Here it is again The neuroendocrinology of sexual attraction - PubMed

Sexual attraction has two components: Emission of sexually attractive stimuli and responsiveness to these stimuli. In rodents, olfactory stimuli are necessary but not sufficient for attraction. We argue that body odors are far superior to odors from excreta (urine, feces) as sexual attractants. Body odors are produced by sebaceous glands all over the body surface and in specialized glands. In primates, visual stimuli, for example the sexual skin, are more important than olfactory. The role of gonadal hormones for the production of and responsiveness to odorants is well established. Both the androgen and the estrogen receptor α are important in male as well as in female rodents. Also in primates, gonadal hormones are necessary for the responsiveness to sexual attractants. In males, the androgen receptor is sufficient for sustaining responsiveness. In female non-human primates, estrogens are needed, whereas androgens seem to contribute to responsiveness in women.

The rest you'd need to have an account.

The nature of attraction and the info above has nothing to do with the sex of the individual in relation and definition of the nature of how attraction works....

How attraction works is why being gay in women is more of a choice.

 

[nPeace]

I gave you link on physical attraction from a scientific point of view. I looked up your biblical sites, did you open mine?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll show you what you missed when I have more time.

"I actually did. Since they are from biblical views it would be biased. It's not the info, it's just when discussing medical things like physiology, it's best to side away from gay/straight and provide how sexual attraction can changed based on the sex of the person. If you take the hetero/homo put of it, the bias drops and you see it strictly as is. Attraction."

I had to go back but the information I gave you is part of the make ups of human attraction. None of this is in scripture.

People had sex, yes, but not until recently (way after BC) did we start learning about the details about sex beyond art, religious edicts, and philosophy.

 

[nPeace]

I tried to find one that wasn't biased. Here it is again The neuroendocrinology of sexual attraction - PubMed

Sexual attraction has two components: Emission of sexually attractive stimuli and responsiveness to these stimuli. In rodents, olfactory stimuli are necessary but not sufficient for attraction. We argue that body odors are far superior to odors from excreta (urine, feces) as sexual attractants. Body odors are produced by sebaceous glands all over the body surface and in specialized glands. In primates, visual stimuli, for example the sexual skin, are more important than olfactory. The role of gonadal hormones for the production of and responsiveness to odorants is well established. Both the androgen and the estrogen receptor α are important in male as well as in female rodents. Also in primates, gonadal hormones are necessary for the responsiveness to sexual attractants. In males, the androgen receptor is sufficient for sustaining responsiveness. In female non-human primates, estrogens are needed, whereas androgens seem to contribute to responsiveness in women.

The rest you'd need to have an account.

The nature of attraction and the info above has nothing to do with the sex of the individual in relation and definition of the nature of how attraction works....

Are you trying to say that certain smells etc, prevents one from making a choice in attraction?

 

[nPeace]

"I actually did. Since they are from biblical views it would be biased. It's not the info, it's just when discussing medical things like physiology, it's best to side away from gay/straight and provide how sexual attraction can changed based on the sex of the person. If you take the hetero/homo put of it, the bias drops and you see it strictly as is. Attraction."

I had to go back but the information I gave you is part of the make ups of human attraction. None of this is in scripture.

People had sex, yes, but not until recently (way after BC) did we start learning about the details about sex beyond art, religious edicts, and philosophy.

I don't know why you keep mentioning the Bible. Is there a reason for that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How attraction works is why being gay in women is more of a choice. They are designed in ways that attraction to other women doesn't involve gender confusion or anything genetic like that.

I don't know about gender, that's something Shadow can discuss. But women to women affection has nothing to do with their sexuality. They can choose to be affectionate with other women and culturally it differs based on personal space, but one's sexuality is the same in women as it is in men.

Affection of women is not sexuality-the physiological and psychological attraction to other women (and men to men, and men to women). Affection does differ by culture and as women are nurturers, yes; but that is irrelevant to one's sexual orientation.

 

[nPeace]

"I actually did. Since they are from biblical views it would be biased. It's not the info, it's just when discussing medical things like physiology, it's best to side away from gay/straight and provide how sexual attraction can changed based on the sex of the person. If you take the hetero/homo put of it, the bias drops and you see it strictly as is. Attraction."

I had to go back but the information I gave you is part of the make ups of human attraction. None of this is in scripture.

People had sex, yes, but not until recently (way after BC) did we start learning about the details about sex beyond art, religious edicts, and philosophy.

What do you mean by details about sex?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you trying to say that certain smells etc, prevents one from making a choice in attraction?

The sources I read says a person's smell is one reasons people are attracted to each other. Their body scent. For example, when I'm attracted to a woman, I notice the difference between one woman's body scent from another. It's not a choice but each person has a response to who they are attracted to by their looks, I think I read about teeth, body language, and smell. Unfortunately, most studies since they were far back only deal with men to women but humans are attracted to other humans. Just scent tends to be one of the ways people are pulled to their mate-men/men, men/women, women/women alike.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know why you keep mentioning the Bible. Is there a reason for that?

I was going back to our conversations. You were mentioning that sex is in the bible, which is fine. But then I was speaking of sexual orientation and physiology isn't in the bible but for some reason you said that everything we know about sex (I hope you mean procreation) is in the bible.

We can clarify it though. Were you saying that you can use the bible to find out about sexual attraction and the nature of it even though the topic hasn't been studied exclusively in the states till almost recently?