Welcome to Gaia! ::

No, no, no, no -- I'm not saying that you are or aren't anything! That's something you have to figure out for yourself. I'm just saying that, yes, it's a distinct possibility.

Trust me, when I first heard on pansexuality my first thought was, "Oh <********>. I've finally figured out that I really do like both guys and girls, and -- god! -- I thought I was set with the whole thing!" Because, yeah, pansexuality sounded like what I said I was, but it was this whole other term and it seemed more complicated, and I didn't think I discriminated based on gender, but maybe I did, and could I ever really have a relationship with a tranny or would it just be like I was a straight girl trying to be bi, or am I just too narrow minded? Because -- omg -- I totally support them and everything, but I don't think I'd ever actually met one until last week, at least not one my age, not in real life. ********, this is so awful, I should just be this thing that it would clearly be so much better for me to be -- but, Christ, I've just barely gotten comfortable with my current label!!!!

So, um, really. Don't feel bad -- just try to listen to yourself and go with the flow...

No. Some animals are clearly capable of some type of thought, and of learning and perhaps even some level of comprehension. But reason/logic is something different. It's an extension, a different way of applying thought, of using our acquired memories and knowledge to create new thought.
It's our ability to reason that allows us to come up with higher mathematics, or even simple concepts like the Transitive Property, which most people uderstand intuitively even if they don't fully know what it means.
An animal, even if it understood the question, could never work out one of those SAT logic puzzles( "If all biffs are floobs...", etc.).


You need to define "God". And stop using the word "stool". Aside from the scatological connotation, it's a rather unsplendid seat for a supposed almighty being. I have a question, though. Are you sure God, if It exists, favors us? How do you assume that God doesn't favor, say, dolphins, and we're not just the empowered tool of some malevolent force working against "God"? Or perhaps we are far more insignificant than you think, and "God"'s favor, if there is any to be had, is reserved for beings far advanced beyond ourselves?


Why is "personalities" in quotations? You don't believe animals have personalities( or animalities, or whatever)? I'd say they do... personality is the difference in the way different people respond to the same stimuli, and that's just as evident in animals, even from birth, not from conditioned behavior.


Whether dolphins are intelligent, or why they aren't?


Agreed... on the other hand I'm not convinced that sexual contact is always harmful to the animals or the people. I'm not condoning or promoting bestiality, I'm just mentioning a potential grey area. I, like Astri, believe that while no one should be condemned for their thoughts, certain thoughts should not be acted upon by civilized beings.


Well, in order to do that, you'd have to tell us where your work is on file. The other guys don't mention dolphins?


Isn't that the point? Dead bodies are objects. Animals aren't people, but they are definitely more than objects.


Wait, what? What if the dead wouldn't have consented to have sex with you when they were alive? Are you saying it's OK to have sex with your dead lover's corpse, but not your ex's or a stranger? That's a little..


Male and female what? Gnu? Lynx? Computer cables/ports???



So what does all this make me? Androsexual? Or is that Greek? Virisexual, then? My orientation isn't nearly encompasing enough to be pansexual, but I do like male qualities in whatever bodies they presnt themselves in. on the other hand, maybe I'm just plain old homosexual, I've never had sex with an FTM and suspect I would find in unappealing or awkward. But as long as they keep their clothes on, I know some yummy ones.
Come to think of it, I'd like to see androsexual and gynosexual( I know, Greek, blah, blah... they have a better ring to them) come into use. If we have to define our sexualities, shouldn't they be defined by what we're attracted to rather than what we are in relation to what we're attracted to? The terms bisexual and pansexual already do so.

Domosexual?

I hate doing this, but this isn't the place for that. Feel free to join in to any of the conversations that you find, but please try to keep on topic. sweatdrop

I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't and won't read everything immediately. The sudden burst of in-depth intellectual discussion is causing a bit of an overload.

xp You just can't resist the urge to banter with JoVo. blaugh

It was all offhand to me. xp



To be sure, it isn't as offtopic as talking about pansexuality in the picture thread. It's only more likely to toss the discussion off in directions where it need not go. The same goes for the continual references to God and the soul.



Yeah, another one of those. xd



Well, I can always just send them to you, but I wouldn't trust my writing on the subject as much as theirs. Bogdan has studied this stuff since he was a wee poor boy in Romania; he's much more well-versed than I am. And he's a very interesting person to talk to. He can talk your ear off about animals and personalities and the evolution of reason.



Now that's the rub.



talk2hand



It's because, deep down, he wubs me. 3nodding