User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 159

  1. #1
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default There is no homo or hetero. It's all just sexual.

    I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

    Upon contemplating a hypothetical romantic partner for myself, it dawned on me that if I say, "I am heterosexual and therefore my perfect mate is a male," that is the same as saying, "I am a homosexual and my perfect mate is a female". But what if my perfect mate is actually something other than what I think I identify with? This happens in other things regarding our lives, we think we *know* something but God shows us otherwise.

    I think perhaps the Godliest way to be, if we want to live in God's will for us, is to just say we are sexual, if we must say anything at all. Perhaps we should just say we are loving, because we should not really be sexing for sex's sake, but for love, making love the primary impetus for sensual and sexual relations anyway.

    If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love. And we are saying that who we love is based on who we want to have sex with. We are allowing our sexual inclinations (more superficial) to dictate love. Since love is THE primary substance of everything (because God is love and God is everything), this is wrong. So, for these reasons identifying who we are based on some misguided sexual notions, is not Godly.

    So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  2. #2
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

    Upon contemplating a hypothetical romantic partner for myself, it dawned on me that if I say, "I am heterosexual and therefore my perfect mate is a male," that is the same as saying, "I am a homosexual and my perfect mate is a female". But what if my perfect mate is actually something other than what I think I identify with? This happens in other things regarding our lives, we think we *know* something but God shows us otherwise.

    I think perhaps the Godliest way to be, if we want to live in God's will for us, is to just say we are sexual, if we must say anything at all. Perhaps we should just say we are loving, because we should not really be sexing for sex's sake, but for love, making love the primary impetus for sensual and sexual relations anyway.

    If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love. And we are saying that who we love is based on who we want to have sex with. We are allowing our sexual inclinations (more superficial) to dictate love. Since love is THE primary substance of everything (because God is love and God is everything), this is wrong. So, for these reasons identifying who we are based on some misguided sexual notions, is not Godly.

    So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.
    I....disagree.

    The definitions alone are to distinguish between those groupings who an individual is naturally attracted to. What you think you identify with is to do with your mind; not your body and it's biochemical reactions. If your perfect mate turns out to not be a male, then you were never heterosexual to begin with.

    Also when you say love, what do you actually mean? Is it a benign all encompassing love? A paternal love? Or the intimate love between one person and another? Not all love is sexual.

    It's true that the definitions were defined by us to explain the groupings and many would consider that a restriction and a divider. But it doesnt change the fact that these different groups of attraction still exist, whether they are defined or not.

    I enjoy the notion of removing such terms as a constrictor upon peoples perceptions. But regardless people are still going to have their desires dictated by their body. It's odd that you should think of it as the other way around...yes we can control ourselves, but we cannot deny that we love what we love.

    So it is no more superficial to love someone, (in that one on one fashion), based on some influence of our inherent sexual inclinations, than it is that I should choose coffee over chocolate when it comes to a cake. Although ill admit the taste in cake is more learned than sexual inclinations.

    Anyone can be sexually attractive but not everyone will induce feelings of love.

    This is why I ask what you mean by love? It is more multifaceted to me than just one angle. I love my mother and father, but I dont want to have sex with them. The exclusion of one group of people with a particular sexual preference is to do with the prejudice of those who would exclude them, not the usage of a grouping term to define a sexual preference that is already there.

    Basically sex=love does not hold true and the only way for your premise to work was if it did. If anything this attacks people for their sexuality.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Uhh..no. There is homo. There is hetero. There's probably more than those, actually. I mean if you can imagine something somebody's probably out there doing it lol.
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  4. #4
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    I would just be really sad if God had given me a female life partner. I don't like girls that way.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  5. #5
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    That's a lovely and spiritual point of view; however it doesn't work for everyone. For most people sexual attraction is a big part of love, a lot of people enjoy casual relationships. Sexual attraction is the instinct which tells you who you would be biologically best to reproduce with. So it's really important. And we have senses which are related to sexuality which tell a lot more about a person, like temperament. If you want to take a religious standpoint, you could say God gave you a sexually discerning instinct, and to ignore it is not Godly. I agree that being loving to both genders is the right thing to do, but if you're not sexually attracted to someone there's no reason to have sex with them.

  6. #6
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    I....disagree.

    The definitions alone are to distinguish between those groupings who an individual is naturally attracted to. What you think you identify with is to do with your mind; not your body and it's biochemical reactions. If your perfect mate turns out to not be a male, then you were never heterosexual to begin with.
    You may have identified as anything at one time, then changed with your desires as you change in life. So called sexual identity and gender identity are just meager attempts to qualify our experience in this world, and to, in effect, control it.

    Also when you say love, what do you actually mean? Is it a benign all encompassing love? A paternal love? Or the intimate love between one person and another? Not all love is sexual.
    There are many types of love. There is a love continuum, I just haven't made it yet. Wanna help me?

    It's true that the definitions were defined by us to explain the groupings and many would consider that a restriction and a divider. But it doesnt change the fact that these different groups of attraction still exist, whether they are defined or not.

    I enjoy the notion of removing such terms as a constrictor upon peoples perceptions. But regardless people are still going to have their desires dictated by their body. It's odd that you should think of it as the other way around...yes we can control ourselves, but we cannot deny that we love what we love.

    So it is no more superficial to love someone, (in that one on one fashion), based on some influence of our inherent sexual inclinations, than it is that I should choose coffee over chocolate when it comes to a cake. Although ill admit the taste in cake is more learned than sexual inclinations.
    I..... would agree with you here. Do you realize what you said ?

    Anyone can be sexually attractive but not everyone will induce feelings of love.
    That is why we must let love lead, so that we are not led by lust. Sex = lust.

    This is why I ask what you mean by love? It is more multifaceted to me than just one angle. I love my mother and father, but I dont want to have sex with them. The exclusion of one group of people with a particular sexual preference is to do with the prejudice of those who would exclude them, not the usage of a grouping term to define a sexual preference that is already there.
    This is what I'm saying. Anyone that says "I'm homosexual" is excluding, via their personal prejudical feelings, a whole potential slew of mates. This is not God's will, but a humanistic notion. I can say all day that I'm attracted to introverted blond-haired blue-eyed tall males, but if God sends me a female, then what should I do? Say, not interested, God, but thanks anyway?

    Basically sex=love does not hold true and the only way for your premise to work was if it did. If anything this attacks people for their sexuality.
    My premise holds true because sex /= love. Love>sex. Love should lead.

    I actually think it'd be more pertinent for everyone to walk around stating what kind of love state they exist in:

    I am capable of agape love.

    I am capable of brotherly love only.

    I am capable of friendly love only.

    I am capable of no love.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #7
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    I'm capable of all those kinds of love. And for someone to tell me I'm lustful and that that is somehow a bad thing is kind of offensive. Not everyone shares your religion. There's nothing wrong with sex for its own sake.

  8. #8
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    This is what I'm saying. Anyone that says "I'm homosexual" is excluding, via their personal prejudical feelings, a whole potential slew of mates. This is not God's will, but a humanistic notion. I can say all day that I'm attracted to introverted blond-haired blue-eyed tall males, but if God sends me a female, then what should I do? Say, not interested, God, but thanks anyway?
    Im not religious but this seems in the realm of sexuality as a choice not a biological inherency. Hence why I said it attacks people for their sexuality.

    If someone were to not identify as homosexual or heterosexual...it doesnt stop their preference or who they are attracted to. A gay/straight man or woman is not going to suddenly go..."oh what ho...I feel much better now that ive got all those definitions out of my system, time to find me a man/woman/squid."


    If the person is excluding others for social reasons based upon their sexuality then that is completely different. But that isn't what you said.

    There is nothing wrong with experimenting and trying to discover your sexuality, but these definers exist, they are clear.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  9. #9
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I'm capable of all those kinds of love.
    Good to know.

    And for someone to tell me I'm lustful and that that is somehow a bad thing is kind of offensive. Not everyone shares your religion. There's nothing wrong with sex for its own sake.
    I didn't say you were lustful. I am saying that defining who you love based on who you lust (i.e. sexual identity) is backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Im not religious but this seems in the realm of sexuality as a choice not a biological inherency. Hence why I said it attacks people for their sexuality.
    Everything is a choice. God gave us free will to choose to do anything. I'm simply proposing a more Godly way of looking at how we view ourselves sexually, and how we express our sexuality.

    If someone were to not identify as homosexual or heterosexual...it doesnt stop their preference or who they are attracted to. A gay/straight man or woman is not going to suddenly go..."oh what ho...I feel much better now that ive got all those definitions out of my system, time to find me a man/woman/squid."


    What do you mean by attracted to? Do you mean lusting after? Or what?
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #10
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Everything is a choice. God gave us free will to choose to do anything. I'm simply proposing a more Godly way of looking at how we view ourselves sexually, and how we express our sexuality.
    Tell you what, ill go out of my way to have sex with as many men as I cross paths with. If it suddenly turns me gay and makes me feel attracted to them...you are right.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

Similar Threads

  1. When there is no personality to type.
    By Tabula in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 10:24 AM
  2. In Charity There is No Excess - Help Type Me!!
    By Applez in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 10:45 PM
  3. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM
  4. If IP is EJ then is IP IP or can it be IJ?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 09:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO