Flash! WHAT??? You AGREE with me about something??????????? No, it can't be true!!!**in total shock***faint* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
There is always a smartass in every crowd, or umm forum... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mooncat, Lori, et.al.: There's been too much discussion here equating sexual behavior to sexuality. I don't agree with that perspective. It reminds me of the Behaviorist (also called Skinnerian, for a noted proponent B.F.Skinner) approach to cognition -- but since most of you wouldn't know what that is, let me give you a lowdown. Classical Behaviorists basically claimed that cognition can only be defined in terms of externally observable acts or effects. Therefore, I can only be defined as happy if I actually <u>look</u> happy. And, if I am grimacing and nursing my arm and moaning, then that must mean that I have a pain in my arm. This kind of an approach toward comprehending cognition purely in terms of externally measurable behavior (Behaviorism) used to be popular early-to-mid twentieth century. It defined behavior in terms of reflex arcs connecting a stimulus to a response (which can itself feed back as a stimulus). Neo-Behaviorists later added "hidden", or "internal" reflex arcs, not directly observable but nevertheless detectable by their modifying effects on observable behavior. The entire approach has since been discredited and disproven into smitherenes and oblivion. One cannot approach the human cognitive machine as a mechanical "black box" full of gears and crankshafts, which does not possess an internal state and can only be defined or driven by sequences of external stimuli and responses. By now, it's been scientifically demonstrated, convincingly and comprehensively, that human cognition does indeed involve internal states, and internal states aplenty. The reason I alluded to Behaviorism, is that many of you seem to equate sexual status or behavior to internal cognitive and emotional states of a person. You are in effect commiting the same fallacy that Behaviorists did. When I talk of sexuality, I do not merely mean how a person behaves, or whom the person is married to, etc. What I mean, is how a person actually feels inside about sex as well as desirability, attractiveness, affinity toward, or complementarity to them of other people of different sexes. I believe that my concept of sexuality, as just described, is intrinsically quite a bit deeper than what seems to be Lori's operational definition. And, I think that my concept of sexuality is also more in touch with the latest psychological and cognitive thinking. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 09, 2000).]
Hi Mooncat, I've put my answers underneath your questions within your quote. ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "The crows are already stoned", he said. With a look of dispassion on his sad face.
Boris, By "internal", or what you propose to be the anti-behaviorism, do you mean genetic? Hormonal? I guess I'll assume that you are, but it seems that you are trying to discount the fact that for ALL people, it is definately, without a doubt, BOTH of those things. And to try to say that homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality, is a condition of the respective "mix" of those two things, with "true" homosexuality being a genetic influence that is soooooooo overwhelmingly strong or impermeable or magic or whatever that it TOTALLY overshadows the behavioral aspect of it, and vice-versa for "true" heterosexuals, is absolutely ridiculous. And I would also come to the most logical conclusion then, FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE FOR A FACT, that it's safe to say that the vast majority of us on this planet are bisexual according to your own labels. Why do I say that? Because it is OBVIOUS to me, and I'm talking OVERWHELMINGLY apparent, that we all fall somewhere along a vast spectrum of genetic AND behavioral influences, and it is simply impossible and arbitrary for people to chop everyone up into three distinct and very narrow categories. I do not logically believe that it is possible for a genetic trait to be so overwhelming as to entirely negate the possibility, given the most prone behavioral circumstance, to someone being able to have a completely fulfilling sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. It's just total hogwash, I'm sorry. It's not logical at all. I mean come on, the genetic makeup that you are referring to here is the same genetic makeup that produced a particular gender in the first place, and not JUST a gender independent of anything else, but someone who is on a vast hormonal spectrum somewhere. And that same genetic makeup doesn't independently (like in a vacuum)produce a particular type of sexuality. Gender and sexuality are related!!!! The same genetic material and the same hormones that combine to produce a girl or a boy do not SPECIFICALLY produce a girl or boy who is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of having a perfectly satisfying sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex. It's absolute hooey. And do you know what the most important reason why is? I think that the most important side of any sexual relationship for anyone is the meaning that they assign to it. Like I said, intentions mean everything. Another reason that I'm so strong in my perception of this is that I'm born again. Being born again in Christ has EVERYTHING to do with a HUGE DRAMATIC CHANGE in one's perceptions. The average person would be ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the number of things that had just never occurred to them before. Believe me, I have had an absolute 180 degree change in a lot of my perceptions because of my relationship with Jesus. That's a fact. And it does change everything. Just as a minor insignificant example, it can change a person who was GENETICALLY predispositioned or "predeterminded" as you insist, to be a nymphomaniac that could potentially be consumed with sex not only for physical reasons but emotional ones as well, into a person who now sees sex for what it really is, and is able to appreciate it for once for what it truly is, in it's purest sense at least in my mind, and if I'm lucky and keep my intentions where they are supposed to be, in my reality. And by the way, behavioralism sounds a hell of a lot like the same justification you always use to deny anything metaphysical in nature. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick. [This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 09, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 09, 2000).]
Lori, No, you misunderstand. "Internal" does not mean genetic or hormonal. Sorry for not being clearer -- that's the price one pays for specializing in something. Eventually, you start speaking the jargon without realizing that what you say may not make any sense to the non-cognoscenti. To get a grip on what it means to have an internal state, consider a computer. It has some external behaviors, such as outputting an image on the screen or sending signals through your internet connection. But, every single program that runs on your computer also has hidden, internal behavior which is not directly observable by the user (you.) Every single program has its own private piece of memory and data, its own files stored permanently on disk, as well as its hidden algorithms and dependencies on the system's properties (like the computer's system clock, for example), a lot of which is not meant to ever be viewable or accessible by "outsiders". So when information flows through such a mechanism as a program, there is a lot of internal "churning" that occurs without any necessarily visible effects. When it comes to subjective experience, external states would denote your behavior, while internal states would refer to your subconscious processes and memory, as well as your feelings, thoughts, desires, moods, etc. which may not necessarily affect your outwardly behavior. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Woooooaaaaaahhhhh Nellie! Well then Boris, based on that, I would have to totally just have to say that is the lamest thing I've ever heard out of you???? I'm kinda dumbfounded myself cause you are sooooooo damn smart you just kill me! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But honestly, Boris, all of these things, are totally subjective, just like you just pointed out? So is your arguement was that these, feelings, thoughts, desires, moods, etc are not subjective or that they are???? It's either one or the other, and I'm confused? Ok wait, my brain's starting to work here, all of these internal traits are not only subjective but also not only determine, but are also determined by our perceptions! So, if I'm not totally off base here, I think that what you are trying to say is that someone may not be "able" to change said perceptions. Is that close? Hog-wash. Boris, that is only the very definition of a paradigm. One of these days Boris, maybe even you will know what I'm talking about when you get religion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
Lori, Give me some credit. I may not be as smart as you assume, but I'm not that dumb either. If something I'm saying sounds really stupid, then that's probably not what I meant to say. I was explaining the terminology. By "subjective experience", I implied your own personal experience as a human being. This means that from your own point of reference, your external behaviors would be what is considered "external", whereas that which you do not outwardly exhibit would be construed as "internal" -- including even things you yourself are not aware of. But "internal" can refer to different things -- dynamic processes that occur in time without lasting consequences to the computational structure, as well as permanent storage of information or modification of brain structures. These two internal types of consequences of information processing, combined together, form "internal state". In other words, from an experimenter's perspective, your spontaneous outwardly behavior cannot be accurately predicted without first possessing full knowledge of your internal state. Hopefully, by now the meaning of external vs. internal ought to start becoming clear. Btw, as far as the rest of us are concerned, your outwardly behavior is not subjective -- since we can all independently observe your behavior and our descriptions will subsequently agree with each other. Thus, your external state is indeed objective, while your internal state is subjective -- at least it is when verbally described by you, because we as outsiders have no idea what your internal states really feel like to you in particular. However, as scientists we can measure your internal states with EEGs and MRIs and PETs and such -- and these measurements would again be objective. The difference will be that while we may determine your internal state attributes objectively, we will have no idea what that state "feels like" to you subjectively. But all this objective vs. subjective discussion is a digression anyway. We were originally concerned with external vs. internal states as applies in the Behaviorism analogy. The point is, that you cannot justifiably make conclusions about a person's internal, subjective, experiences based on what you objectively determine from external behavior. You cannot justifiably extrapolate your own subjective experiences to others either, because there are no assurances that other people feel about things or perceive things like you do. Philosophically, this is called "the Other Minds problem." Classically, it goes something like this: how can you really know that any other humans possess an existence independent of your own? What if life is something like a dream, and everyone around you is merely a fictional character generated by your own mind? This question, while seemingly absurd, is actually quite deep. In fact, there is absolutely no way to find a resolution for the Other Minds problem. All we can do, is just plain ASSUME that other people possess their own minds. This assumption is also nontrivial, as demonstrated by studies of human development. In fact, children prior to a certain age (~4-5 years old, I believe) fail to demonstrate awareness of other minds. They are purely "egotistical" and tend to believe that other people know, feel and need exactly what the child knows, feels and needs, without the child needing to tell the others anything. Thus, you get behaviors such as "hiding" by covering one's eyes in a belief that with such an arrangement, the other people wouldn't see anything either. Then, as children mature, they begin to gradually understand that other people possess an experience independent of their own. (Incidentally, such behavior in humans suggests that other animals are incapable of construing Other Minds -- since the smartest other animal we know, the adult chimpanzee, is approximately equivalent in intelligence to a 3-4 year old toddler (minus the verbal abilities and plus better motor coordination and more world knowledge).) So what this particular discussion ultimately boils down to, is this. (1) You tend to assume, in a Behaviorist-like manner, that any individual's total cognitive state can be characterized through their external states alone. (2) Only hidden in that assumption, is the tacit requirement to know your own internal states as well, so that you can extrapolate them to others. However, the first assumption, taken alone, is demonstrably fallacious. And combined with the second it forms a methodology that is, at the very least, bad: in essense, you cannot claim to know what other people feel or think, because you have no assurances that they indeed function in the same way that you do. In fact, you know for sure that other people don't function like you do. Some people like math, and some don't. Some people are high priests, and others are serial murderers. Some people are nerds, and others are bimbos. These are all external characteristics, but they must be reflecting internal differences. In fact, other people's subjective experiences may be nothing at all like your own. Therefore, you have no justification in trying to impose your private intuitions about personal issues upon others. In fact, many of your personal intuitions are simply incompatible with those of other people, because other people are built differently -- in a similar way that software compiled to run on different computer architectures will be incompatible if you try to swap it between those architectures. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 09, 2000).]
I don't read many on the World Affairs forum, Boris! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "The crows are already stoned", he said. With a look of dispassion on his sad face.
MoonCat-- * "Or should we just forget all the damn labels, and just let people be people? I wish we could, but frankly, I don't think we will ever manage to accomplish that." Umm ... amen ... thank you ... I agree wholeheartedly ... you've hit the nail on the head ... (okay, now I'm risking a string of really bad sayings for this, so I'll stop.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I think that's exactly the issue at hand. However, the other questions you asked deserve some consideration. So, for my part: * "What defines being a homosexual?" In the most real aspect, I would assert that only the homosexual can define their own self as homosexual; it stems from the compulsion or desire to find pleasure in acts typically regarded as sexual with one's own. I would also assert that the compulsions or desires must be a recurring thing ... to act upon them means nothing, else there's thousands of young virgins who are lying when they say they are heterosexual. * "Is it a single homosexual experience?" Please consider part of the speculations above; I do feel that there is a difference between being homosexual and having a homosexual encounter. * "Is it if you consider yourself homosexual, you are?" I think that's largely part of it. Perhaps it is all that is needed; else there's thosuands of young I-think-I'm-gay virgins who are lying when they say so. * "If you constantly wish and fantasize about homosexual sex, but stay celibate, are you a homosexual?" There's something there if one stays celibate. There are other considerations if one is heterosexually active, say, a closet-gay who is married. But largely, it comes down to the prior assertion that one needs not actualize emotion or realize fantasy in order to "be" homosexual. * "What about if you're married heterosexually but feel strongly you're homosexual, but don't do anything about it?" In that case, I feel the individual is lying to their own self, though I would discount at least in part the moral considerations of perpetuating that lie to other people. One is what one is ... the greater implications being those surrounding the marital relationship itself. But as to defining one's homosexuality, in this case I would look to why nothing is done about it. On one hand, it could be simple fear amid the perception of an anti-gay society; to the other, it could be that one isn't necessarily homosexual, but is entertaining those fantasies because the sexual reality of the marriage is so poor. In the case of the latter, extrication from the marriage will not resolve the question, merely allow the possibility of resolution. But one would probably want to figure why the alternate fantasies were specifically homosexual. However, I would assert that none of the observations I've made above amount to anything in practice. This because, as you have so wonderfully wondered, the labels simply need to go. The only time it should matter what gender you screw should be in a pick-up introduction: "Pardon me, but I couldn't help noticing that your appearance is quite striking and appealing; your impressions of me as a person aside, am I the wrong gender to be hitting on you?" As to labels, I would like to make a general political statement: * Is The Color Purple a good book because: A) Alice Walker is black and she can write; B) she's a woman and can write; C) she's a black woman who can write; or D) she's can write well. * Is Oscar Wilde taught as a good writer because he was good, or because he was gay? * Is C.S. Lewis a good writer because he was Christian? Or because he could express himself better than his contemporaries? I would assert the same for people in general. If anyone is a positive force in the world, then labels don't matter. If anyone is a negative force in the world, then labels don't matter. But if someone is worried about labels, what kind of force are they contributing to the scheme? Labels are designed to distinguish, to separate. Why, then, separate people according to labels? But that's just my soapbox and aimed nowhere in particular. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey, good stuff, everyone! My personal take is pretty much that the labels are going to be inaccurate, no matter what. I am saying this badly, I mean; as soon as you apply a label to someone, you are simplifying that person, and therefore it cannot be correct. Is that any better?? LOL. I have always been a little uncomfortable with all of these labels: homosexual heterosexual bisexual transsexual transvestite I think people have a need to catagorize others, some kind of built-in mechanism we use to try to understand those around us. So you meet someone, and you try to squeeze them into these catagories you have in your head. I have listed 5 examples above - five catagories of sexuality that I can easily discern from eachother. But does everyone I meet fit into one of those catagories? Of course not! So by shoving each person I meet into one of those catagories, what am I accomplishing? Well, I'm making some assumptions that might or might not be true. I might have expectations that are unfounded. (Like if I cram Bob into the homosexual catagory. Most homosexuals I know are artists, so I make the assumption that Bob probably is an artist. Turns out, Bob can't even hold a pencil straight.) That example is a pretty harmless one, but you see my point. Labeling people is a slippery thing to do, it can cause a lot of problems. But yet I believe we ALL do it, to some degree or another. Perhaps the best we can all do is to be aware of the fact that we ARE labeling people, and try to make sure the labels are on post-it notes, and can be taken off and re-arranged easily. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So I guess my question was a bit of a trick question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But it generated a lot of good thought! Boris~ I totally understand what you're saying about internal vs. external. Like your example with the guy moaning and groaning and holding his arm. Mabye he's not hurt, maybe he's just a big faker trying to get attention - you can't really tell just by looking at him. I am reminded of my dog - he tore a dew claw off a month or two ago. He limped on the wrong foot for 2 days after he got out of the vet - holding up the uninjured foot and hopping around on the one with the stitches. This animal was just trying to get attention, there was not any real pain there or he wouldn't have been able to hop on the hurt foot. What a typical male! (I'm just kidding!!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well Flash, I read over some of the scriptures that you wanted me too, and I think that whoever wrote that little piece was just really, really stretching things. I've got to give them an A for effort here, but I think that they are trying desparately to find confirmation of something that they are never going to find. I just don't quite know what else to say here besides for crying out loud, can't we EVER just use some common sense??????? See, that is exactly where people get into trouble with the Bible. When you are specifically reading the Bible to TRY to prove something that you ALREADY believe, I think that it's safe to say that you can pick and choose many verses to "serve your purpose". I do think that the verses mentioned do pertain to sexuality, marriage, and "natural" or inherent intent. I also think THAT IF FOR ONCE PLEASE GOD YOU WOULD USE SOME COMMON SENSE WHEN LOOKING AT OURSELVES AND THIS WORLD, you would see that what I just read, that was supposed to somehow change my perception, just reinforced it. There IS a natural inherent ideal intention regarding everything that God has given us. Now use your noodle, and figure out what that is..... Also, I wanted to note that your comment about me jonesin' for a man because I want to have a baby is just as ludicrous as the comment that 666 made regarding me wanting to kill children. You know that I have a low stupidity tolerance, so ????? I want to have sex cause I'm horny, dummy. Isn't that common sense-ish when you really think about it?????? Listen, you guys just really really want me to be a lunatic, so you twist what I say. I guess I can't assume anything when I write, so here goes again... When it comes to sex, this is the way I see it... God gave us the hormones and the organs to have sex, and it feels good for a reason. Because He wanted it too. THAT is WHY people have sex, including me. Duh. When I say that sex is about babies, I don't mean it's ONLY about that, but that is a big part of it's intent. I also believe that God shows us what His intentions are through His Word and His spiritual laws. For everything that is given us, there is an ideal God-given intention for which it is to be used. Sex, obviously produces children. Is it supposed to? Of course it is. I also think that another divine intention is regarding the intimacy that is intended, and the benefit being a healthy emotional state. There are rules to be met, to ensure that these intentions are not ignored, or side-stepped, or basically that we don't internalize them for our own selfish needs, but always promote God's will. Rule - monogamy and marriage. Why? Cause it's good for the natural consequence of the relationship, which is children. From an emotional standpoint, we all know that the sex is better with someone we love and trust. A marriage is SUPPOSED to be the most loving and trusting bond ever created. After all, it's supposed to be for life right? Keep the ideal in mind Flash that I'm always talking about. And don't take one little sliver of it, and try to put in it a vacuum, because everything is interdependent. Men and women NEED each other. They NEED the relationship THE WAY THAT GOD INTENDED THE RELATIONSHIP TO BE. It's good for us, it's good for the children, it's good for the universe. Please, please, please just use some common sense. ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
That is simply your opinion, Lori. You have no FACT to it whatsoever...talk about wanting to read something into scriptures Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Further, I did not imply you wanted to have sex with a man because you wanted a baby!! I KNOW better than that. What I was talking about is how you were saying it was all suppose to be "right" in God's eyes blah blah blah...then you turn around and say you want to have sex with a guy so bad right now...I KNEW well what you meant by that..but, here you are putting down homosexuality because it's such a sin ..and in the same breath honk your horn about how bad you wanted sex right now..and that you'd give just about anything.. I am done debating this subject with you. I am going to leave it at this... you have a right to be who you want to be...AND SO DO I!! I haven't tried to change you...don't try to change me. If you can do that..then that would be great! [This message has been edited by Flash (edited February 10, 2000).]
Well how about this...I'm horny as hell, would love to have sex, but in fact if the intent and circumstance are NOT right in the eyes of my Lord, then I will CHOOSE to abstain. You're reverting back to the "Christians are aliens" arguement, in assuming that just because someone isn't doinking, that they must just be weird, and they just don't want to doink. That's absurd. Everyone wants to doink. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But there are rules. If I doinked everyone that I wanted to doink, I just wouldn't get much else done...I'd have to quit my job....I'd lose a bunch of weight....my animals would starve too...and I sure as hell wouldn't have time to talk to you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
Lori, if you were a kangaroo, you'd be going doink, doink, doink! But as I know that you cannot be a kangaroo, I suspect that what you meant to say was, bonk, bonk, bonk! ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bonk? I think it's more of a doink. Oh no, not another thing to debate!!!!! ROFLMAO! Oh, and I almost forgot the lesbians...is it slurp? ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick. [This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 10, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Lori (edited February 10, 2000).]
Lori, You know I all most don't know what to say. First you twisted my post so badly it wasn't funny. You see only what you want to see! Go back and reread my post in that topic and you might finaly understand that I was pointing out that through your own words you were condoning this act that the bible says God commited, but that will only happen when you taken your blinders off!! If you have a problem with me or what I posted address me not other people. We are not in the third grade any more. At any time you chose you can click on the "mail" icon above any of my post to email me. ------------------ All I know is what I understand. All I understand is what I know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
666, I was just trying to make a point homey. It's the same point that Boris made to me. If you are thinking that something I say is THAT ludicrous, then you are probably misunderstanding. That's the way I felt when I read that post of yours, and that's the way I feel about 90% of the time out here. Flash does that to me all the time. I was simply trying to point out the obvious. I'm sorry ok, I didn't bring it up again to sling it in your face, I was only trying to make a point. I'm not mad at you or anything about it, ok??? *smooch* Tony, You're right. He is sensitive. That's a good thing for a guy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
Oh boink! You're right MC, I think it is!!!! LOL! ------------------ "Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!" I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.
