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

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

LOVE>sex

It's just that simple.


I'm just sharing. If what I have to say makes y'all feel defensive, you might want to explore that. But I do not expect my truth to be accepted by others. To each his own.


Selah~


~Aphrodite

 

[cascadeco]

LOVE>sex

It's just that simple.

It appears not to be that simple, since it seems one also must believe in God and view the Bible as the word of God.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Or one could simply put love>sex.

How is that not simple?

 

[cafe]

People kinda tend to get that way when they feel they are being attacked.

Your sharing style has a sanctimonious vibe. You may not mean it to sound like you know more than people do about their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences or that your ideas are universally true and applicable to everyone in all situations, and if they disagree they have a sin problem or aren't spiritual enough or really haven't thought enough about it or tried hard enough because if they did, they would jump on your band wagon, but that is basically how you are coming off, at least in this thread.

Like you are some kind authority on our libidos and genitals.

When someone says they *are* gay or straight you're all like "No you're not."

And they're like "I'm pretty sure I am. I've never liked boys/girls in my life that way."

And you're like "Well, maybe you should try them. You might like them. God might give you one of the kind you don't like and then what are you gonna do if you don't like both? Hmmm?"

And then they're like "I don't even believe in god/your God/your religion/Bible." or "I don't think God would give me someone I am not going to like that way."

And you're like "But it's totally true! You should believe in it/Him! And your sex will probably be bad if you don't." or "But he could and if you loved them enough you'd want to have sex with them regardless of silly things like what gender they are!"

And they're like "Okay . . . " *slowly backing away from the crazy lady* or

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I can see that you would take it that way.

But you don't need to. You can just read it, take what you want from it, and leave the rest (or all of it), if you don't like it.

I am not attacking you or anyone else. You guys are attacking me, however. For simply stating my truth. And what I see as true. Instead of 'referencing' my style of communication, or vibe, or persona, it would be more appropriate to stick to the topic at hand, and attack the argument, not the person.

Forums are places where heated and controversial topics are discussed. Don't be surprised when opinionated people give opinions. If you can't handle the heat, don't stare at, or play with, the fire. :whereissaryanfireemoticon?:

I'd love to discourse on this topic. I am not closed on this subject, indeed I'm just starting to really explore it. If I sound sanctimonious, it doesn't mean I'm locked into to, it just is how I am. Love me or leave me.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

LOVE>sex

It's just that simple.


I'm just sharing. If what I have to say makes y'all feel defensive, you might want to explore that. But I do not expect my truth to be accepted by others. To each his own.


Selah~


~Aphrodite

i suspect most posters in this thread would agree with these principles, but it is the application of these principles which you present in such a manner as to dismiss the uniqueness of how these broad concepts apply to individuals. What I am understanding from your text is that the application you present of these principles is being presented as universal.

I read your presentation of love to be specifically based on God, Christianity, and the Bible. These have been defined as the sources for understanding love. The specificity of this application dismisses the diverse and individual manner in which understanding the principle of love is achieved.

By defining sexuality as all possible applications of it, by saying that an individual should be open and capable of every expression of sexuality, including change in sexual orientation, you are also dismissing the diverse and individual manner in which people can experience sexuality. It is now because you assume a breadth of expression that is so general it becomes dismissive.

There is a lot of symmetry and perfectly constructed opposites in your thinking. You seek to create a sense of balance by bringing absolute extremes together. By taking each concept to its extreme, you inadvertently dismiss all individual specificity of how both concepts are reasonably and compassionately applied.

If it is now your position that you are not proposing a universal application of either love or sexuality, but are presenting the universal principle that love >sex and describe that for you personally that means that as long as you feel guided by the Christian god and the Bible, you feel there is meaning in exploring a wide range of sexual expressions, then I think most, if not all, posters have no quibble with you.

 

[1487610420]

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

No, not really. I just responded to cascade that the basic principle, on this tangent, is love>sex. Really this thread is about staying open to orientation, because orientation is really subjugated, or should be, to who you love. If it is not subjugated to who you love, then it's not a worthy expression to explore, because then you are being sexual just due to sensual reasons, not because of love. So, the two threads I started of late are inextricably linked, though I did not intend that when I made them.

It is interesting that they link up though, because that does imply a truth: The truth that love is more important than sex or orientation, or anything. It's clear to me. Whether you believe in God or not, most believe in love, because it's an emotion that we experience often, hopefully. If we more often feel sexual urgings or lustfulness, it might mean that we cannot love, or that it is blocked for some reason.

Instead of ANALyzing to death how I think or how I present things, I think it'd be more fruitful to analyze the topic at hand--how does the sexuality continuum work and how do we express ourselves as human being on that continuum and throughout life, and what makes some of us fluid on that continuum, and others not so fluid. The same could be said for other continuums as well, like the gender continuum.


If my thoughts seem extreme to you, I'm sorry. I like to get to the heart of matters.

 

[Orangey]

The implication of what you're saying is that anyone hetero/homosexual identified is prioritizing lust over love by consciously constraining their range of who they can love on the basis of genitalia. Isn't it far more likely that they understand (1) that erotic love equally involves love feelings AND sexual feelings, and (2) that their sexual feelings are largely out of their conscious control? That would mean that "love" in the erotic sense is not separate from sexual feelings (and therefore can't precede sexual feelings in the way you suggest...just as sexual feelings can't precede love feelings), and that identification with an orientation is more a description of what they understand about themselves and their bodies than a prescriptive rule arbitrarily adopted.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The implication of what you're saying is that anyone hetero/homosexual identified is prioritizing lust over love by consciously constraining their range of who they can love on the basis of genitalia. Isn't it far more likely that they understand (1) that erotic love equally involves love feelings AND sexual feelings, and (2) that their sexual feelings are largely out of their conscious control? That would mean that "love" in the erotic sense is not separate from sexual feelings (and therefore can't precede sexual feelings in the way you suggest...just as sexual feelings can't precede love feelings), and that identification with an orientation is more a description of what they understand about themselves and their bodies than a prescriptive rule arbitrarily adopted.

But isn't the converse suggesting that you pick who you 'can' love out of who you are physically attracted to, limiting? And I cannot really even follow that thought through logistically. If you can, it means that a person has either been cultivated to believe that they desire a certain 'group'; ........or has been sexual enough to know they do, meaning that they will be looking more for those sex cues than at the person itself when deciding upon whether she is a good mate.

If the former is the case, then if you filtered out cultural 'training' and the person dug below judgments and stereotypes and sexism, the person might be more open-minded than its environment provided for. If the latter is the case, then it means one is intentionally and strategically, even if unconsciously, eliminating a certain group because it has been conditioned, via experience or other things, to desire one group over another. Since the variable here is "lack of being in Certain Sexual Group", then that means one is choosing based on sexual characteristic and not the person himself.


If you fall at either end of the spectrum, and are vehement about it, then I'd say why are you being so vehement? I'd say that to gays and heteros. I'd say that to anyone who hardcore keeps themselves inside walls of any kind. I don't expect anyone else to get what I'm saying, and I'm not saying it has to be valid to everyone else. It's just become apparent to me recently.



Overall, my motto is

~in luce vive, vive in amore~​

whoever that may be

 

[cascadeco]

But isn't the converse suggesting that you pick who you 'can' love out of who you are physically attracted to, limiting?

Is sex a necessary extension with anyone you DO love?

Is it not possible to love someone without desiring to have sex with them? (I would hope so, when it comes to parents, siblings, friends, otherwise it means sex must follow love in all instances)

Conversely, is it not possible to love someone AND want to have sex with them?

Thus if you are not physically attracted to someone, you can still love them as a human being and friend, but not want to have sex with them. And if you are physically attracted to someone, maybe you love them, maybe you don't, but in both cases, maybe you still don't want to have sex. Or maybe you do.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Is sex a necessary extension with anyone you DO love?

Is it not possible to love someone without desiring to have sex with them? (I would hope so, when it comes to parents, siblings, friends, otherwise it means sex must follow love in all instances)

Conversely, is it not possible to love someone AND want to have sex with them?

Thus if you are not physically attracted to someone, you can still love them as a human being and friend, but not want to have sex with them. And if you are physically attracted to someone, maybe you love them, maybe you don't, but in both cases, maybe you still don't want to have sex. Or maybe you do.

These are my thoughts to your post. If they do not ring true for you, do not feel you have to think about them or believe them.

Anything is possible in the realm of human beings. It's about what is best. I have realized my best road is hard to determine on my own without a guide of some sort. I have tried many types of guides in the form of self-help books, dabbling in new age religiosity, and using my intuition. They all help some, but I was lacking a sound framework which I found in God and His word, which acquainted me with Jesus and His life. So, to be my best, I need not only my own flavor and intuition and style(because we are all so different!), but I need a sound framework to follow. I think we all do.

So what I have come to know (and seems obvious to me, doesn't it to everyone else? ) is that love is the primary emotion and gauge we have for relating with others. There are different kinds of love, and no, not all of them are sexual, but some lend themselves well to becoming sexual, like romantic love, or even brotherly love.?

Sexual urge is also very primitive to being human, admittedly. Sex is to the body as love is to our soul. I think that love is a purer and more holy emotion, so I think it is more important than sex. You can love and not have sex and still have a wonderful, fulfilling relationship, but you cannot really have sex without love and say the same thing. Can you. It does give you something. Just as anything else you do sensually gives you something. But that deeper something is missing, which is love.


I'm confused as to your bolded.

 

[cascadeco]

I was trying to break it out into various possibilities, because I find some of your explanations confusing, especially getting into the physical attraction element and your seeming to deny its importance or the fact that different people can have different elements of attraction.

So, I was saying it is possible to a)Love without being physically attracted to the person, b)Love AND be physically attracted to them, c)Not love and not be attracted, or d)not love and be attracted.

For myself and probably many others, physical attraction is required to want to have sex with another person; it wasn't clear that you were saying it was or should be required from some of your posts.

I generally don't disagree with you though re. the importance of love, and the emptiness/pointlessness - on a certain level (for me) - of sex without love. However, I come at that from a very different angle than you.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I was trying to break it out into various possibilities, because I find some of your explanations confusing, especially getting into the physical attraction element and your seeming to deny its importance or the fact that different people can have different elements of attraction.

So, I was saying it is possible to a)Love without being physically attracted to the person, b)Love AND be physically attracted to them, c)Not love and not be attracted, and d)not love and be attracted.

For myself and probably many others, physical attraction is required to want to have sex with them; it wasn't clear that you were saying it was or should be required from some of your posts.

I generally don't disagree with you though re. the importance of love, and the emptiness/pointlessness - on a certain level (for me) - of sex without love. However, I come at that from a very different angle than you.

Physical attraction is grouped in with 'sex'. It is inferior to love. We treat it first in our culture. We treat it like it is necessary for love. But it isn't. You can have sex (physical attraction) lead you if you like, as may others. Most people do. If we find our mates based on physical attraction (who we want to potentially have sex with), we run the risk of attaching prematurely or to someone not right for us. Or to hurting or being hurt unnecessarily. And to wasting time, and to lots of other things that are not Godly or enriching. Yes, it might be fun, but it isn't good for us overall.

 

[cascadeco]

Ok. I'm outta here!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Adios!

 

[PeaceBaby]

welp, what to say ...

aga, I do think I hear what you are trying to express about love and I don't outright disagree because I think you're trying to say that you've become kind of more open-minded about what you would do if God sent you someone to love that didn't match your preconceived notion of what gender that person should be. That you're trying not to limit how God can work in your life by narrowing the options yourself in the first place.

Arguably though, by being receptive to either gender sexually is to be bisexual ... know what I mean? If you choose to see sexual attraction as a spectrum rather than specific labels, you personally may be closer to the middle where one contemplates the possibility of a same-sex partner and doesn't feel averse to that contemplation.

And, if you're saying that no one can predict the future, that perhaps ANYONE could meet another person who could shake your belief about what gender you are sexually attracted to, sure it could happen, who can really argue against that? A hetero could meet a same-sex partner who rocks their world. And vice-versa. It is possible. Since there's no such thing as 100% anything.

Sex is sex and love is love and love with sex is just about one of the greatest feelings, but let's not get mixed up that love has to enter the sexual equation. And to add God in there too, wow that gets complicated quick, the ultimate threesome, eh? If I feel like it I might come back later and wend my way through your logicz.

Be aware too that your solid framework is simply your interpretation of that framework.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

welp, what to say ...

aga, I do think I hear what you are trying to express about love and I don't outright disagree because I think you're trying to say that you've become kind of more open-minded about what you would do if God sent you someone to love that didn't match your preconceived notion of what gender that person should be. That you're trying not to limit how God can work in your life by narrowing the options yourself in the first place.

Arguably though, by being receptive to either gender sexually is to be bisexual ... know what I mean? If you choose to see sexual attraction as a spectrum rather than specific labels, you personally may be closer to the middle where one contemplates the possibility of a same-sex partner and doesn't feel averse to that contemplation.

And, if you're saying that no one can predict the future, that perhaps ANYONE could meet another person who could shake your belief about what gender you are sexually attracted to, sure it could happen, who can really argue against that? A hetero could meet a same-sex partner who rocks their world. And vice-versa. It is possible. Since there's no such thing as 100% anything.

Sex is sex and love is love and love with sex is just about one of the greatest feelings, but let's not get mixed up that love has to enter the sexual equation. And to add God in there too, wow that gets messy quick. If I feel like it I might come back later and wend my way through your logicz.

Be aware too that your solid framework is simply your interpretation of that framework.

I think you make good points. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.

To the bolded: If you believe in God, and live coram Deo, then that will likely be a necessary part--to love first.

But everyone has their own reality. This is just what I am coming to believe.

 

[PeaceBaby]

To the bolded: If you believe in God, and live coram Deo, then that will likely be a necessary part--to love first.

Which is a choice ... your own choice.

But everyone has their own reality. This is just what I am coming to believe.

Welcome to the realm of subjectivity Fi. Nice to see you stretching your wings here.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I suppose women are slightly more complicated in this regard. But here's my take on it.

I've considered my bi-'curiosity' at one point when I've felt genuine feelings of deep care for another person that was of the same sex (although his sexuality itself was debatable, transgender). But whilest I did feel a sort of connection I could best describe as love. I had no sexual feelings for him whatsoever. And trust me when I say I seriously considered about a possible relationship here. Ultimately he was just not what I needed and I not what he needed. And whilest we remained friends, I made our future clear and he ended up in a good relationship with someone that did fit him well, so all it well that ends well.

Sexuality is and always will be one of the most important factors to consider potential lifelong partners, at least for me. In fact, I think it is the only thing that I could never compromise on.

In fact, if I did try to force that relationship on me and that person, I would always feel like I would not be able to give him what he truely deserves, which is physical affection. That kind of love only does harm.