• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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.
 

Winds of Thor

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,842
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
I would just be really sad if God had given me a female life partner. I don't like girls that way.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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. :smile: 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.

:huh: 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.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm capable of all those kinds of love.

Good to know. :D

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.

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."

:laugh:

What do you mean by attracted to? Do you mean lusting after? Or what?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.


Did I propose having sex with people we cross paths with?

This already happens. To men in prison long term.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Did I propose having sex with people we cross paths with?

You did suggest experimentation. And im trying to get across the point that 'loving' people in a sexual way, who are not of your inherent biological attractions, is not going to change just because people drop definers and force attempted love.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

There's also nothing wrong with dressing up like Santa, patting your knees at Ryan Gosling and leering "The 12 Days of Christmas" at him until he calls the cops. *holds sides while they jiggle like a bowlful of jelly*

Someone please come bail me out. Please.

On a serious note, I think that being a sx-primary lends to the need to merge, regardless of "persuasion". It's whether or not you act on it selfishly that counts.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There's also nothing wrong with dressing up like Santa, patting your knees at Ryan Gosling and leering "The 12 Days of Christmas" at him until he calls the cops. *holds sides while they jiggle like a bowlful of jelly*

Someone please come bail me out. Please.

On a serious note, I think that being a sx-primary lends to the need to merge, regardless of "persuasion". It's whether or not you act on it selfishly that counts.

So...what are you suggesting about it then? Being sexual without a romantic sort of love to go with it is not selfish.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You did suggest experimentation. And im trying to get across the point that 'loving' people in a sexual way, who are not of your inherent biological attractions, is not going to change just because people drop definers and force attempted love.


Well, I did not mean to suggest experimentation in a lustful sense at all.

Forcing love is not what I'm talking about. *sigh* Is this really that hard to understand??


Experiencing love with someone and then having the urge to express that sexually goes WAY beyond the constraints of sexual identity.

And one should not indulge lustful thoughts of anyone; should not give it any playtime at all. The eyes are the windows to the soul and one should protect one's soul.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Experiencing love with someone and then having the urge to express that sexually goes WAY beyond the constraints of sexual identity.

Sexual identity in terms of the literal definitions used to define them is a construct of our understanding. I dont disagree with that.

However what those terms define DO exist and have been proven to exist. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality dont just vanish out of existance because we remove the definitions. Do we stop breathing if there is no word for air?

As for love and expressing it sexually...I dont really care or mind. But if you are willing to have sex with men and women who you love and this is an expression of that love...then that means you were always attracted to both genders. You were always bi-sexual. You can of course ignore the term and disregard it, but you cannot deny the truth of your chemical attractions.

The word exists because of what it explains, not the other way around.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So...what are you suggesting about it then? Being sexual without a romantic sort of love to go with it is not selfish.

Ah no no, I wasn't implying anything at all. I was simply making an aside. As a sx, I have to battle this feeling of "MERGE!" constantly. Granted I'm emotionally and physically strained at the moment, so when I'm near people I love, the push to discard boundaries and be as close to them as possible is not always something I SHOULD respond to. I want to maintain THEIR meaning, even if meaning is confused, muddled up, or gone for me.

I don't think mutual expression is necessarily selfish any more than I think withholding is always noble or brave.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
OMG. Why? :BangHead:

AGA, your ideas on sexuality tend to be unusual and extreme and you give the impression that everyone who doesn't do or see it your way is doing it/seeing it wrong.

Most people identify as gay, straight, bi or something. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think God makes us with a potential range of sexuality. Environment, experiences, and choice can influence your development within that range. Sometimes someone can fall in love with someone who is not their ordinary preference. You get that sometimes. Just like you sometimes get albinos but most of the time, people don't have pink irises. So as short-hand we generally say people have brown, blue, green, grey, or hazel eyes. It's possible to have other colors. It's possible to get your eye poked out with a stick. But we don't have to include those things in every conversation about eye color, IMO.

As a general rule, if you have a tendency to be attracted to (or lust after) a particular gender more than the other, you're probably best off with a partner of that gender. Just like if you prefer a particular body type, you probably shouldn't pursue people of the opposite body type. Assuming God gets involved in this kind of thing at this level, he's probably going to send you someone who is your type, since he made you in the first place.

I'm born again and doctrinally Evangelical, so I understand what you're saying about the lust thing. A lot of people do not share those views. I don't think it's right to hold people that do not share those views to the dictates of those views, personally. It would be like someone giving me a hard time about eating sausage for breakfast because their religion forbids the consumption of pork or meat. Or for not covering my head when I left the house or using electricity in the house. I can eat sausage, go around bare-headed and use electricity in the house with a clear conscience because those things do not violate my beliefs. So it is with those who do not hold to Conservative Christian standards on sex.

Personally, I've never fought the temptation to lust for a woman. I'm forty-two and I've only ever fought the temptation to lust for men. Generally stocky men with big butts. I consider that enough evidence to call myself straight and probably a chubby chaser. Not saying it could never change, but it's probably fairly unlikely at this point.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ah no no, I wasn't implying anything at all. I was simply making an aside. As a sx, I have to battle this feeling of "MERGE!" constantly. Granted I'm emotionally and physically strained at the moment, so when I'm near people I love, the push to discard boundaries and be as close to them as possible is not always something I SHOULD respond to. I want to maintain THEIR meaning, even if meaning is confused, muddled up, or gone for me.

I don't think mutual expression is necessarily selfish any more than I think withholding is always noble or brave.
Ah, ok. And I understand the sx thing, although I'm about as much sp I think.

And [MENTION=15392]AffirmitiveAnxiety[/MENTION] , you have made excellent points throughout this thread.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?



My premise holds true because sex /= love. Love>sex. Love should lead.

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.




I can see what you’re saying, the power of identity (and feeling like certain choices are already made for us because our ego clings to the identity) is strong, but I personally don’t have any identity issues wrapped strongly around ‘hetero’ and it still isn’t a choice for me. Maybe you don’t have a strong predilection for exclusively one direction or the other, so maybe it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like for one to truly be there in others.

There’s a certain organic truth under the labels and while using labels is often an attempt to sell a man-made construct about ‘human nature’ as an organic truth (“If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love.”), that works in the other direction as well: getting rid of a label doesn’t get rid of whatever underlying organic truth the label was constructed to distinguish. I don’t think we really get to ‘decide’ what that underlying truth is; self actualization is more about uncovering it than deciding what it is.

I actually wish what you are saying could be true- I’ve had far closer relationships with females, in the sense that I’ve felt far more understood and related infinitely better to female friends than any guys I’ve been in a relationship with- but the appetite just isn’t there. I’m somewhat unusual in that I don’t feel any lust for someone without a foundation of something like agape forming first (I really need that foundation of respect and awe for humanity to be there)- so I do agree with your premise that love should ‘lead’ (at least, for me)- but I disagree that we can ‘choose’ anything. Regardless of how strong the bond I form, lust really only follows that foundation in relation to males for me. Trying to ‘decide’ where that appetite ‘should’ be would ultimately be forcing the issue as much as letting the established labels make that decision for me.
 
Top