What do existentialists think of homosexual/gender compulsions?

[Age]

AND, what about for those who are sexually attracted to having sex with 'the dead' or with non human animals, for example?

I am sorry you feel that complusion.

And you are BASING 'this' ON 'what', EXACTLY?

Clearly when there is no consentual outlet for your personal desire you can only have recourse to other means to control or direct your desires.

Well what about ALL of those 'girls', but which you USED the word 'women' for before, (to 'TRY TO' cover up), that you LOOK AT, PERV ON, IMAGINE or THINK about INAPPROPRIATELY or NON CONSENTINGLY, for 'your' OWN 'personal desire?

Can 'you' CONTROL or DIRECT those PERSONAL DESIRES of 'yours' here?

If yes, then WHY did and do 'you' NOT?

Have you considered using simulated manikins?
Maybe you could buy a blow up doll or other sex dol and make him look a bit more zombie like with make-up?

Do you want to talk about it?

YES, I WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT 'it'.

BRING 'it' ON "sculptor".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, this is actually a thing. Welcome to the new normal-- the + at the end of the acronym rainbow (and the 'pluses' can go on forever...).

Now, now, don't be 'transphobic'...

womanface.jpg (36.02 KiB) Viewed 2531 times

[Age]

Yes, this is actually a thing. Welcome to the new normal-- the + at the end of the acronym rainbow (and the 'pluses' can go on forever...).

Now, now, don't be 'transphobic'...




womanface.jpg

ALL LEARNED behavior, or more correctly, LEARNED MISBEHAVIOR, LEARNED FROM the type of 'society' one lives WITH, and is brought up IN.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, this is actually a thing. Welcome to the new normal-- the + at the end of the acronym rainbow (and the 'pluses' can go on forever...).

Now, now, don't be 'transphobic'...




womanface.jpg

ALL LEARNED behavior, or more correctly, LEARNED MISBEHAVIOR, LEARNED FROM the type of 'society' one lives WITH, and is brought up IN.

Wha does that have to do with anything? Can't you EVER just say something that isn't irritating?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And not forgetting women's sport. Mustn't be 'transphobic'. Men who 'feel' that they are women (especially when it comes to winning a lot of money in women's sports) must NEVER be made to feel unsafe and unwelcome. After all, MEN are the MOST VULNERABLE people in society. Not children. Not the elderly. Not women. MEN-- especially big, hairy, misogynistic men who like to use women's toilets and changing rooms.
Apparently women have penises these days. It's all terribly jolly. What a hoot.

[Age]

Yes, this is actually a thing. Welcome to the new normal-- the + at the end of the acronym rainbow (and the 'pluses' can go on forever...).

Now, now, don't be 'transphobic'...




womanface.jpg

ALL LEARNED behavior, or more correctly, LEARNED MISBEHAVIOR, LEARNED FROM the type of 'society' one lives WITH, and is brought up IN.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Can't you EVER just say something that isn't irritating?

Did you NOT READ, ABOVE, where I was PARTLY EXPLAIN what IS and what IS NOT 'learned', and what IS and what IS NOT 'innate'?

you, here, have just provided ANOTHER 'thing' that IS LEARNED, and NOT INNATE.

REMEMBER, there are people in this thread 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that mis/behaving, like you have just SHOWN us ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF here, IS JUST A 'PERFECTLY NORMAL behavior', which NO has CONTROL OVER, BECAUSE 'they' were just born 'THAT WAY'.

And, if you had TAKEN ANY NOTICE, over the last few decades, in relation to when this is being written, MORE and MORE people are SAYING and STATING that what was once CALLED and LABELLED 'deviant behavior' is 'now' being CALLED and LABELLED 'normal behavior'.

Now, WHY MORE and MORE people are VIEWING 'things' THIS WAY IS, AGAIN, BECAUSE 'it' IS LEARNED BEHAVIOR, DUE to the VERY 'socities' in which 'they' LIVE and are BROUGHT UP IN.

MORE and MORE people are NOT BECOMING "homosexual" NOR "homosexual activists", like "sculptor" IS, because 'they' are born with the so-called 'biological innate compulsion' TO, but BECAUSE 'they' have LEARNED TO BE-COME 'THAT WAY'.

As for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' I SAY 'irritating you', then so be it.

Would 'you' SERIOUSLY like 'me' to CHANGE ALL of MY WORDS, just so I NEVER 'irritate' 'you' EVER AGAIN?

[Age]

And not forgetting women's sport. Mustn't be 'transphobic'. Men who 'feel' that they are women (especially when it comes to winning a lot of money in women's sports) must NEVER be made to feel unsafe and unwelcome. After all, MEN are the MOST VULNERABLE people in society. Not children. Not the elderly. Not women. MEN-- especially big, hairy, misogynistic men who like to use women's toilets and changing rooms.
Apparently women have penises these days. It's all terribly jolly. What a hoot.

WHO CARES what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

It is like those who DO are some sort of 'wokie' and who get OFFENDED by just seeing naked human bodies. It is like the 'thoughts' within those heads are telling 'them', 'I have only lived ONE WAY and I get 'SO OFFENDED' by SEEING ANY 'thing' DIFFERENT from what I am USED TO and COMFORTABLE WITH'.

It is like 'these people' get SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY 'OFFENDED' OVER just about NOTHING AT ALL. The 'thoughts' within those heads are like; 'Oh I get OFFENDED when ANY one wants to do ANY 'thing' DIFFERENT, so I will just SHOW HOW OFFENDED I REALLY AM by ENFORCING that EVERY one does EVERY 'thing' THE WAY that 'it' WAS BEFORE, so that NO one will get 'OFFENDED' 'now'. It is like 'these people' BELIEVE that BECAUSE they get SO EASILY And SO SIMPLY OFFENDED, that they then WANT TO DO 'that' what they BELIEVE will NOT OFFEND ANY one "else".

[Sculptor]

looks like the crazies have already taken over the thread.

[Harbal]

And not forgetting women's sport. Mustn't be 'transphobic'. Men who 'feel' that they are women (especially when it comes to winning a lot of money in women's sports) must NEVER be made to feel unsafe and unwelcome. After all, MEN are the MOST VULNERABLE people in society. Not children. Not the elderly. Not women. MEN-- especially big, hairy, misogynistic men who like to use women's toilets and changing rooms.
Apparently women have penises these days. It's all terribly jolly. What a hoot.

WHO CARES what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

Quite a lot of human beings care, and women have more reason than men to care. Why is it unreasonable for women to want their own exclusive areas, whether it be in sport, or changing rooms and toilets?

[Age]

And not forgetting women's sport. Mustn't be 'transphobic'. Men who 'feel' that they are women (especially when it comes to winning a lot of money in women's sports) must NEVER be made to feel unsafe and unwelcome. After all, MEN are the MOST VULNERABLE people in society. Not children. Not the elderly. Not women. MEN-- especially big, hairy, misogynistic men who like to use women's toilets and changing rooms.
Apparently women have penises these days. It's all terribly jolly. What a hoot.

WHO CARES what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

Quite a lot of human beings care, and women have more reason than men to care.

WHY? And,

WHY?

That is; WHY do quite a LOT of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, CARE what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

After all, for MILLIONS OF YEARS, 'you', human beings, did NOT CARE AT ALL WHERE you went to the 'toilet' NOR WHERE 'you' 'changed', (if you did). So, WHY do 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, CARE?

Is 'this' a 'biological innate compulsion', OR just a 'learned behavior'.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'you' CARED, AT ALL, at one point. Which is FAR MORE than just a LOT of 'you'.

AND, what ARE the MORE reasons women have to care than men do.

So, let us START OFF by READING and HEARING what the REASON or REASONS men have TO CARE, and then let us READ and HERE what the MORE REASONS ARE that women have TO CARE.

Why is it unreasonable for women to want their own exclusive areas, whether it be in sport, or changing rooms and toilets?

I NEVER even 'thought' that 'it' WAS UNREASONABLE, let alone SAID 'it' absolutely ANYWHERE.

I was, LITERALLY, JUST CURIOS AS TO WHO CARES.

And now that you INFORMED me that QUITE A LOT of 'you', human beings, DO CARE, and that women, supposedly, have MORE REASONS TO CARE, I have just BECOME MORE CURIOS, and that IS ALL.

[Trajk Logik]

Existentialists like Sartre taught that "existence precedes essence"- meaning that people do not really have an essence, or true nature; that we are free to make any decisions we wish at any time. Such freedom is so radical that many of us don't want to face it. It gives us a "sense of vertigo" when in those rare moments we see the full extent of that freedom. Anyone who makes any claims that some option is not open to them because of appeals to some supposed inner essence or nature is acting in "bad faith". It is just an excuse.

"What is vertigo for Sartre? Vertigo is the realization of the totality of our freedom. And the realization of the totality of our freedom is necessarily related to the recognition of the fragility of our freedom. In other words, at any second I could decide to end my own existence. I have the absolute freedom to do so if I so wanted. And that is what makes the vertigo moment so unhinging. I realize I am in complete control of my life. That also means I can choose to end my life at any moment. Freedom includes the freedom to end freedom."
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com
Sartre: Vertigo (On the Fragility of Freedom)
One of the most famous sections in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is his commentary over the moment of vertigo—dramatized with a person on the edge of cliffside looking down to his death below or h…
hesiodscorner.wordpress.com hesiodscorner.wordpress.com

But one of the arguments we hear from homosexuals is that they never chose to be homosexuals (or transgender, etc...). This seems to suggest that there is an inner compulsion, an inner nature, which makes them adapt that lifestyle. They do not have the freedom to choose their actions because it is part of the essence of who they are. To use existentialist terminology, their essence precedes their existence.

Is this, from an existentialist's perspective, acting in a sort of Sartrian "bad faith"? Any existentialists out there? How would Sartre, or any existentialist, respond to that claim by the homosexual?

How can one talk about existence without essence, or essence without existence? One cannot be without the other. "Free to make decisions" would be the essence of one's existence. Being free does not mean you lack essence. It means that one essence of your existence is freedom, as there are lifeforms that have no freedom which would be part of the essence of their existence. And in talking about essences, you are talking about things that exist by default. It's non-sensical to talk as if they are separate. Dumb-dumb dualism. Monism is the way.

The diversity of behavior of human beings does not equate to one's freedom to determine one's identity. We are human beings regardless if some human claims to be a giraffe or a dolphin. I am not your father, even if I claim to be your father. I'm not Darth Vader either, even if I claim to be the Dark Lord of the Sith. The same goes for being a man or a woman. There are existences/essences that you cannot chose, and there are some that you can, which stems from the diversity of human behavior and the cultures we find ourselves in. You can choose to be a teacher, a car mechanic, an astronaut, or a veterinarian. You can also choose to be a mother/father, but ironically cannot choose to be a son/daughter, or the family you are born into. We are all sons/daughters but not necessarily fathers/mothers.

Other species engage in homosexual behaviors but this stems from their instincts to do what feels good in the moment. They're merely responding to their sexual impulses in the moment. Homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous and they are simply responding to their sexual impulses to seek pleasure, no matter what sex the other person is. As a matter of fact, many homosexuals are actually bisexuals, as they have had sex with both sexes at some point in their lives. It's just that women are less promiscuous so it's easier to find other males to engage in sexual acts than other women. It's easier to go home with someone from a gay bar than a primarily heterosexual bar.

So it's not something they choose. Sexual promiscuity comes in degrees throughout the human population. Those that are more promiscuous tend to engage in riskier sexual behaviors, while those that rarely engage in sex contribute less, or maybe not at all, to the gene pool, and there are the majority of us in between.

[Harbal]

WHO CARES what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

Quite a lot of human beings care, and women have more reason than men to care.

WHY? And,

WHY?

That is; WHY do quite a LOT of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, CARE what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

After all, for MILLIONS OF YEARS, 'you', human beings, did NOT CARE AT ALL WHERE you went to the 'toilet' NOR WHERE 'you' 'changed', (if you did). So, WHY do 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, CARE?

Is 'this' a 'biological innate compulsion', OR just a 'learned behavior'.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'you' CARED, AT ALL, at one point. Which is FAR MORE than just a LOT of 'you'.

AND, what ARE the MORE reasons women have to care than men do.

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

[Sculptor]

Quite a lot of human beings care, and women have more reason than men to care.

WHY? And,

WHY?

That is; WHY do quite a LOT of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, CARE what 'toilets' or 'change rooms' 'you', human beings, use?

After all, for MILLIONS OF YEARS, 'you', human beings, did NOT CARE AT ALL WHERE you went to the 'toilet' NOR WHERE 'you' 'changed', (if you did). So, WHY do 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, CARE?

Is 'this' a 'biological innate compulsion', OR just a 'learned behavior'.

Oh, and by the way, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'you' CARED, AT ALL, at one point. Which is FAR MORE than just a LOT of 'you'.

AND, what ARE the MORE reasons women have to care than men do.

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

I think this whole part of the debate is complete bogus.
Trans women do not attack women in toilets. Women have far more to fear from straight men.
Seriously what are you going to do. Have guards at every toilet doing penis checks??
Toilets do not have to be gendered. Toilets to not have to have common areas.
We do not have gendered toilets in our homes and there is no reason we need them in public.

[Flannel Jesus]

The safety issues of allowing men access to areas where there are women in various states of undress are surely obvious. There is also the matter of privacy; many people are uncomfortable about undressing in front of members of the opposite sex.

Humans have not been around for millions of years, btw; I believe it is something like 300,000 years. Which is still a long time, and although we spent most of it without separate toilets and changing rooms, that is not a reason to continue doing so if we would rather not. Why we would rather not is unimportant. We have also spent the vast majority of that 300,000 years without indoor plumbing, and other modern conveniences, but we would take badly to having to give it up just because our ancestors managed without it.

Considering women are the ones who have the most to lose here, according to what you're saying, do you think it should be women who choose? Should women choose if transgender people can be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing? If not, why not?

[Harbal]

We do not have gendered toilets in our homes and there is no reason we need them in public.

If we don't need them, can't we just have them because we want them?