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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wow, you know how I KNOW I'll never fancy a man? Have you seen what men look like naked? it's not a pretty sight. Guys, face it, we got the short end of the stick on looks while being naked. Even a lot of straight women will tell you this.
You obviously haven't seen me naked, then.
Unless you have a great rack and a nice rear, then I don't want to. Or maybe you do.....
meh, eye of the beholder and all that.Wow, you know how I KNOW I'll never fancy a man? Have you seen what men look like naked? it's not a pretty sight. Guys, face it, we got the short end of the stick on looks while being naked. Even a lot of straight women will tell you this.
meh, eye of the beholder and all that.
Mike, seriously? I swear, as Dallas has attested to, women will say men do not look good naked. I know a few gay men that say the same thing. It's just not as asthetically pleasing to the eye.
Wow, you know how I KNOW I'll never fancy a man? Have you seen what men look like naked? it's not a pretty sight. Guys, face it, we got the short end of the stick on looks while being naked. Even a lot of straight women will tell you this.
I dunno, it always looks to me as if men have the long end of the stick while naked.
I will now leave this thread before I get myself in trouble...:run:
This is so incorrect. If someone is sexually ambivalent, you don't automatically label them 'bi-sexual'. The way we categorize people is crude and insulting.
What if someone was sexually abused? That would certainly bring up hesitations towards sex. Some people are naturally uncomfortable about sex. These things don't qualify them as NOT BEING HETEROSEXUAL.
It's so stupid to say that confused = bisexual. That is the 100% wrong answer.
This is the problem I have with our current view of sexuality. We want to put it into four little boxes (hetero, homo, bi, trans) when in reality the latter two are hardly consistent, if at all. Why isn't it possible, as Stephen is possibly suggesting, that it is POSSIBLE for most people to swing one way or the other.
Say you're a man, isolated from women for 20 YEARS! Does that not increase the chance that he will find himself attracted to men? And if a girl grows up with a strong father and is blessed with having extremely positive relationships with boys, does that not make it more likely that she will not consider homosexuality as an option?
I'm not arguing against whether or not sexuality is genetic (of course it is, to a degree)(although now we have seven-year-olds saying they are homosexual, which is stupid and doesn't make sense). I'm arguing that environment CERTAINLY is a huge factor in whether or not homosexuality is considered. Consideration does indeed play a huge role in whether or not someone adopts a homosexual lifestyle.
So with that in mind, how do you know that you (if you are a heterosexual) would never at any point consider homosexuality? And even if you think you know the answer, how do you know that, if your life had been different, you might answer differently?
Can I ask why you don't think that makes any sense?I'm not arguing against whether or not sexuality is genetic (of course it is, to a degreealthough now we have seven-year-olds saying they are homosexual, which is stupid and doesn't make sense).
This is so incorrect. If someone is sexually ambivalent, you don't automatically label them 'bi-sexual'. The way we categorize people is crude and insulting.
What if someone was sexually abused? That would certainly bring up hesitations towards sex. Some people are naturally uncomfortable about sex. These things don't qualify them as NOT BEING HETEROSEXUAL.
It's so stupid to say that confused = bisexual. That is the 100% wrong answer.
This is the problem I have with our current view of sexuality. We want to put it into four little boxes (hetero, homo, bi, trans) when in reality the latter two are hardly consistent, if at all. Why isn't it possible, as Stephen is possibly suggesting, that it is POSSIBLE for most people to swing one way or the other.
Say you're a man, isolated from women for 20 YEARS! Does that not increase the chance that he will find himself attracted to men? And if a girl grows up with a strong father and is blessed with having extremely positive relationships with boys, does that not make it more likely that she will not consider homosexuality as an option?
I'm not arguing against whether or not sexuality is genetic (of course it is, to a degree)(although now we have seven-year-olds saying they are homosexual, which is stupid and doesn't make sense). I'm arguing that environment CERTAINLY is a huge factor in whether or not homosexuality is considered. Consideration does indeed play a huge role in whether or not someone adopts a homosexual lifestyle.
So with that in mind, how do you know that you (if you are a heterosexual) would never at any point consider homosexuality? And even if you think you know the answer, how do you know that, if your life had been different, you might answer differently?
(of course it is, to a degree)(although now we have seven-year-olds saying they are homosexual, which is stupid and doesn't make sense).
Reiðrska;1291455 said:Bisexuality isn't not knowing what you want. It's being greedy.
Sorry about the extra 'being' in the title. My hetrosexuality caused a lapse in concentration - Trying to balance a baby and type !! hahahaha
Why doesn't it make sense? I knew I liked other girls by the time I was five.