Trap Thread

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if the terms are archaic, then you should have no qualms about their usage

whether or not the definition of homosexual is archaic does not grant you the right to redefine it as you see fit. the term is wholly independent of gender. what i say and what you say doesn't make it so -- what the dictionary says makes it so

I disagree. Dictionaries are often biased, and in the end published by a person. I would rather put my faith in experts in the field, who are often not also dictionary editors.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So if someone has straight sex their whole life and then has gay sex once, what does that make them?

Eternally damned to hellfire.

[Hasbinbad]

I do not believe that the label of homosexuality is the same thing as a homosexual act and i do not believe that either of those things are the same as a homosexual urge. I do not think that in any of these cases, such attributions are permanent nor defining, but rather descriptive and transient.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what if a gay person never has gay sex but hides it and only has heterosexual sex?

if they direct sexual desire at the same sex, they are homosexual. actual sexual activity is not required

and yet if they are having heterosexual sex, they are engaging in heterosexuality

you're not really finding gray area. this is all related to direct definitions

[Hasbinbad]

also i already showed how sex is less bedrock than you may think it is, though you conveniently ignored that. And since your "definitions" of sexuality are based on sex, that makes your definitions of sexuality suspect.

[Hasbinbad]

anyway it's late. i have fapping to do. peese.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I disagree. Dictionaries are often biased, and in the end published by a person. I would rather put my faith in experts in the field, who are often not also dictionary editors.

experts in the field of what? once a word is defined, its usage must conform to standard definitions or it is being used in error

if experts in the field seek to more accurately define incidences of human sexuality, they must do it by introducing their own terms rather than misusing existing ones. if they are using the term "homosexuality" to refer to anything beyond sexual desire or activity between members of the same sex, they are using it in error and contributing to further confusion and misconceptions regarding sexuality

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if experts in the field seek to more accurately define incidences of human sexuality, they must do it by introducing their own terms rather than misusing existing ones.

I keep trying to tell you. You keep calling it irrelevant. I think you misunderstand the jargon. But in any case g'night.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

also i already showed how sex is less bedrock than you may think it is, though you conveniently ignored that. And since your "definitions" of sexuality are based on sex, that makes your definitions of sexuality suspect.

they're not my definitions, they're merriam-webster's

and sexual ambiguities are still rather easily divided into male and female, with exceedingly rare exceptions

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I keep trying to tell you. You keep calling it irrelevant. I think you misunderstand the jargon. But in any case g'night.

i'm not calling gender irrelevant to life and sexuality. i'm calling it irrelevant to homosexuality and heterosexuality, which have established definitions that are wholly independent of gender