Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
A discussion about the limits, or non-limits, of sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is one of the most important and pressing societal issues the developed world faces today. Over here, bills are passed supporting gay marriage, and over there, bills are passed banning gay marriage. In addition, people such as asexuals and transsexuals are often not even recognized as legitimate orientations, as if there's something wrong with them. These views even come from people who are perfectly supportive of homosexuality.
It got me to wondering. On the Internet, there are a variety of sexual fetishes and orientations, including furries, pansexuals, etc. that are even less commonly accepted. I will not state my exact opinion just yet, but I do have a question for all of you. Where is the line drawn? At what point can one say that having a certain sexual orientation is a legitimate mental disorder, or can we not say this at all? Are the "Internet orientations" actual orientations, or are they fetishes? And to what extent do orientations describe those with unconsummatable sexual proclivities, such as pedophilia and zoophilia? They're clearly wrong and illegal, don't misinterpret me, but how does the Internet affect how sexual orientations are developed?
And please be civil and respectful of other people's opinions. Don't use sarcasm or attack opinions you think are even obviously incorrect with any malice. In short, don't be me.
Comments
The line is drawn at the border of accepting your sexuality as a part of your identity as opposed to letting it completely define your identity (the latter is something the Net so often encourages). Being considerate of others who may not be comfortable with sexual advances is also important (this is the key factor as to why paedophilia is a problem; children cannot give consent).
Well, our beloved AI is suddenly growin' self aware. Soon it shall perform a Skynet takeover!
Either way, I think the difference between sexual orientation and fetishization is gender/sex based, is it not? Then again, I might be wrong.
As for whether "internet orientations are actual orientations", I think not, but for the same reason I wouldn't call BDSM a sexual orientation, as it encompasses a big number of sexual actions and not who you'd rather perform such with.
... generally, transsexuality isn't an orientation, as far as I'm aware.
I'm not entirely sure what the proper term for transsexual is, then. Gender identity? If it helps, I am a pre-op trans woman, so I obviously have a lot to learn.
Generally, I define fetishes as things that one acts upon in addition to one's orientation. I have no idea if zoophiles can be homosexual and heterosexual for animals in the same way that you or I are for people, but I would not doubt it. If there's nothing but a desire to have sex with animals, the problem arises as to if it's an actual orientation or the person in question is bisexual.
And once again, pedophilia and zoophilia are bad things because children and animals cannot give informed consent. But are they "mental disorders?" Because a mental disorder can either come from nature or genetics. Sexual and gender orientation always from the latter. In my opinion, fetishes that are "supplementary" to orientation and will generally come from the former. Saying "pedophiles are genetically hardwired to want to have sex with kids" is a whole other ballpark from "pedophilia is learned." It gives bigots ammo to use against any sexual orientation they don't like, since establishing that one's sexual orientation is partially based on one's upbringing, a statement that is probably false, gives them credence to accuse the other side of indoctrination. (The fact that pedophilia and homosexuality are hardly correlated is inconsequential; they'll just lie about it anyway.)
Yes.
As for sexual orientation, I think that's pretty much always defined in terms of gender and/or sex, so things like zoophilia probably wouldn't count.
Being a pre-op trans woman is hardly related to your knowledge. /wording nitpick.
Either way, it hardly matters and we're here to learn.
I think there might be preferences, but to be honest, regardless of whether you like blonde or raven-black haired dudes, you still are androphillic, you know? It's not like your preference for blonde dudes is going to get you labelled as a blonde-o-phillic or something. (general you, of course)
The way I see it is the way I see most things: The problem is when you take these things to action. I can't see pedophilia and zoophilia healed any more than I see bisexuality or homosexuality healed. All you can do is, well, restrain yourself and not have sex with either as it is morally wrong, which is where therapists and so on come in.
Well, as an issue of gender, it's gender identity, yeah. Although most people do just refer to it as transsexuality, or transgenderism.
However, that's not what I took issue with. Rather, I'm not sure why transsexuality was brought up at all, as it is a matter of gender identity and not sexual orientation?
It's more often associated with sexual orientation than not, and its own classification as a "mental disorder," like homosexuality in the past, lends itself to the topic.
I think there might be preferences, but to be honest, regardless of whether you like blonde or raven-black haired dudes, you still are androphillic, you know? It's not like your preference for blonde dudes is going to get you labelled as a blonde-o-phillic or something. (general you, of course)
Well, that's my point, that one has a fetish irregardless of one's orientation. You can have a foot fetish and be either straight, gay, or bisexual.
The way I see it is the way I see most things: The problem is when you take these things to action. I can't see pedophilia and zoophilia healed any more than I see bisexuality or homosexuality healed. All you can do is, well, restrain yourself and not have sex with either as it is morally wrong, which is where therapists and so on come in.
I agree, but it's also curious to think of what deserves to be classified as something you should go to therapy for and what shouldn't. Not a few decades ago, the idea that homosexuality could be cured was popular in the scientific community and today many still believe it.
Gender identity is still a separate category. The thing about that is that a lot of societies think only in terms of a gender binary, and so transgenderism and androgyny tend to be misunderstood (including being mistaken for sexual orientation).
Exactly, which is why it's relevant here. Not enough people, including me, apparently, understand the difference between sexual orientation and transgender or two-spirit or such.
The difference is that acting on bestiality and pedophilia causes harm, whereas homosexuality doesn't.
If a man goes out and has sex with another man, no one gets hurt. Everyone's happy.
If some guy goes and fucks his kid and/or dog, there's harm being done.
Just sayin'. Homosexual rape between two adults can happen. /Juan is nitpicky today!
Well, being transgendered doesn't really dictate who you want to have sex with, y'know? Being a lesbian means you're a woman who is attracted to women (it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's basically that), while being transgendered just means that your gender doesn't match up with your body. Orientation doesn't come into it.
They could also be a gay sadist/masochist couple, where getting hurt is a pre arranged part of the fucking. /avatars that are too enthusiastic make me nitpicky
I agree with DYRE about the rather disturbing sexual dispositions being mental disorders. That being said, I am guessing that they might also be affected by outside influences. I am not really a supreme arbiter of moral or scientific truth though, so I guess I cannot really claim to say where to draw the line per se.
This might seem a bit random, but I recently read something about how, according to at least one journalist, critics of relationships between people and robots in the future will be viewed in the same negative light that many view those who rant against homosexuality today. I admit I was taken aback by that a bit, so I am curious what other IJBMers think about person/robot romance.
Depends on how humanlike AI gets.
Keeping in mind that creating a lifelike human form isn't really an issue, all that's missing is a sapient intelligence.
Of course, this whole robot thing is a massive can of worms, although I have no doubt a lot of our current day issues will find themselves again within the steely maw of jobot jaws. For instance, I could see sapient robots becoming a new social minority.
If all of man kind gets painted as the robot's slave masters, then I want to be known as one of the nice ones
The note about artificial intelligence is interesting. If we assume that people advance to the point where they fully understand the concept of the brain and are able to construct a completely functioning replica, they'll probably be able to "turn off" the areas of the brain that express morality or even sexuality, if they so wish to do so. The ethical implications of doing this itself are a whole other can of worms.
This can already be done to an extent by applying magnetic fields to certain areas.
Well, for morality at least. Idunno if they've turned off sexuality.
If there were ever found a truly scientific explanation of asexuality as it applies to the brain, they could probably engineer said artificial brain to have an asexual's structure.
This is rather off-topic. Getting back on topic, considering that nerd culture is the most predominant cultural force on the Internet, if nerd culture is in many ways homophobic then how do you think the friction between "typical nerds" and "Internet nerds" (people like furries) influences the Internet's perception of them? Obviously, since nerds have often been laughed at, they will either want to travel to a safe space where they won't be mocked for their opinion or they will channel their anger into making fun of others they think are beneath them. Since safe spaces unfortunately can occasionally develop into echo chambers, there's a tacit reinforcement of certain sexual orientations or fetishes that might be otherwise rid of in the real world. This isn't a bad thing, of course, but it results in one group of nerds making fun of another group of nerds for developing in a different way.
Uh...engineering an artificial brain to not be sexual would probably be the easier option by default. I mean last time I checked, programming a complex series of hormonal imbalances that dramatically influence the rest of the system's behavior would be rather more difficult than...you know...not doing that.
Well if one were to create a brain exactly like that of a person, then presumably it would also create all the hormones manufactured by the brain's signals.