14 Aug 2007, 8:26 am
14 Aug 2007, 8:33 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
I still don't get why 'he' is written with a capital H when referring to this god thing. Since when did pronouns begin with capitals?
Ah, now you're getting to the deep and profound matters of existence.
I do notice, though, that you can't seem to stand referring to God as even "he", let alone "He". Do you hate men or something?
Back to this again?
I could call it 'he' if I wanted to, but I don't even believe it exists.
Exactly, then what's the harm in using the common pronoun of the Christian God? Not that I care, it's just curious you go out of your way to use the wrong one. How about I refer to you as "he" from now on? Fair? I mean, I'm less sure of your existence than of God's, since I've known Him personally for longer than you've been alive.
Sopho wrote:
Do you hate women?
You were the one who admitted being angry at 'womankind' at one point in your life. However pissed off I was at one man, I wouldn't ever hate every man in the world for it. I've given you no evidence to suggest I hate men. I get on with them as friends. Whereas you've actually admitted to being pissed off at ALL women. So if anyone hates half the population, it's you.
You were the one who admitted being angry at 'womankind' at one point in your life. However pissed off I was at one man, I wouldn't ever hate every man in the world for it. I've given you no evidence to suggest I hate men. I get on with them as friends. Whereas you've actually admitted to being pissed off at ALL women. So if anyone hates half the population, it's you.
Haven't you ever heard a woman shout, "Men!!" in exasperation? Most women have done that before, and that's how I felt about women -- very frustrated with certain personality quirks of the fairer sex, and most men have experienced the same frustration at some point.
14 Aug 2007, 9:04 am
Ragtime wrote:
How about I refer to you as "he" from now on? Fair? I mean, I'm less sure of your existence than of God's, since I've known Him personally for longer than you've been alive.
lol Are you forgetting I'm trangendered? It wouldn't bother me at all. In fact, I'd prefer 'it.'
Why does it bother you so much anyway?
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Do you hate women?
You were the one who admitted being angry at 'womankind' at one point in your life. However pissed off I was at one man, I wouldn't ever hate every man in the world for it. I've given you no evidence to suggest I hate men. I get on with them as friends. Whereas you've actually admitted to being pissed off at ALL women. So if anyone hates half the population, it's you.
You were the one who admitted being angry at 'womankind' at one point in your life. However pissed off I was at one man, I wouldn't ever hate every man in the world for it. I've given you no evidence to suggest I hate men. I get on with them as friends. Whereas you've actually admitted to being pissed off at ALL women. So if anyone hates half the population, it's you.
Haven't you ever heard a woman shout, "Men!!" in exasperation? Most women have done that before, and that's how I felt about women -- very frustrated with certain personality quirks of the fairer sex, and most men have experienced the same frustration at some point.
Yeah, because all women have the exact same personality quirks, and NO men share any of them at all...
14 Aug 2007, 9:30 am
14 Aug 2007, 9:33 am
14 Aug 2007, 9:43 am
14 Aug 2007, 9:46 am
calandale wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
but there is a diff in what you're claiming... and what he's saying there is no real attraction so he wouldnt really descirbe it as bi
Right, but I don't have a real attraction
to most female humans either. What does
this make me (other than shallow)?
Picky.
14 Aug 2007, 10:19 am
14 Aug 2007, 10:21 am
14 Aug 2007, 10:23 am
14 Aug 2007, 10:24 am
14 Aug 2007, 10:28 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
calandale wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
but there is a diff in what you're claiming... and what he's saying there is no real attraction so he wouldnt really descirbe it as bi
Right, but I don't have a real attraction
to most female humans either. What does
this make me (other than shallow)?
I think if you had an attraction to ALL of them, you'd be generally considered a perv, as I don't think it's natural to pathologically like everyone of every shape, age, size, and facial-hair status who's technically "women".
But here's the real test:
Present a man who's straight with two people he can choose from -- 1) the in-his-opinion most good-looking man in the world and 2) the in-his-opinion least gorgeous woman in the world, and ask him which person he's most turned on by. Just as much, I like to see the test reversed, so that a woman is presented the option of either a woman she considers very attractive and a man she considers very unattractive, and ask her which person gets her hotter.
Neither would get me 'hot.'
I said use a straight subject.
Why? How is it any different for anyone?
My point.
"Straight" is a relative term.
14 Aug 2007, 10:30 am
Ragtime wrote:
My point.
"Straight" is a relative term.
"Straight" is a relative term.
I meant how is this particular situation any different for a gay person or a straight person?
14 Aug 2007, 10:38 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
My point.
"Straight" is a relative term.
"Straight" is a relative term.
I meant how is this particular situation any different for a gay person or a straight person?
Most if not all gays and straights, when monitored by instruments, will show higher physical arousal when viewing/touching the most-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who's not their normally-prefered sex, than when viewing/touching the least-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who is their normally-prefered sex. So, "gay" and "straight" are relative phenonema.
14 Aug 2007, 10:49 am
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
My point.
"Straight" is a relative term.
"Straight" is a relative term.
I meant how is this particular situation any different for a gay person or a straight person?
Most if not all gays and straights, when monitored by instruments, will show higher physical arousal when viewing/touching the most-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who's not their normally-prefered sex, than when viewing/touching the least-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who is their normally-prefered sex. So, "gay" and "straight" are relative phenonema.
There you go then, it's the same for gay people as it is for straight people. I still wouldn't be aroused looking at or touching the most 'beautiful' man in the world.
14 Aug 2007, 10:58 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
My point.
"Straight" is a relative term.
"Straight" is a relative term.
I meant how is this particular situation any different for a gay person or a straight person?
Most if not all gays and straights, when monitored by instruments, will show higher physical arousal when viewing/touching the most-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who's not their normally-prefered sex, than when viewing/touching the least-beautiful-in-the-world-in-their-opinion person who is their normally-prefered sex. So, "gay" and "straight" are relative phenonema.
There you go then, it's the same for gay people as it is for straight people.
Therefore, straight men aren't only attracted to women -- just mostly. And gay men aren't only attracted to men, just mostly. The "mostly" may be extreme or not, depending on the individual. Each person's sex attraction is plastic, and depends on between/among whom you give them a choice of potential partners. So, being gay is partly societal, depending partly upon the particular demographics around them.
Last edited by Ragtime on 14 Aug 2007, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
