Arising from another post, I wondered where people some on defining sexual acts subjectivejy or objectively. In other words is something defined by common standards or is it all defined by the persons concerned.
So, say penis in vagina sex is going on where the person with a vagina identifies as a woman and the person with the penis also identifies as a woman.
Would you define said sex as:
1. Heterosexual
2. Lesbian
3. Something else
4. Whatever the two people involved say it is.
Just post a number and keep it good natured. 
As I'm a philosophical materialist, I'm a 1. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can't see that this has anything to do with your philosophical outlook.
Say you're correct and they are having heterosexual sex. Is that sex going to be different if the one with the penis is using a dildo?
In time, if the one with the penis undergoes gender reassignment, would the same two people still be having the same sort of sex? Is it possible for the same two people to have heterosexual AND lesbian sex?
Or should we just call it sex and leave them to it.
Unless they like to be watched of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't see that this has anything to do with your philosophical outlook.
Say you're correct and they are having heterosexual sex. Is that sex going to be different if the one with the penis is using a dildo?
In time, if the one with the penis undergoes gender reassignment, would the same two people still be having the same sort of sex? Is it possible for the same two people to have heterosexual AND lesbian sex?
Or should we just call it sex and leave them to it.
Unless they like to be watched of course. "
The philosophical point is whether you are see ideas in people's heads or external reality as more important.
We can just call it sex, but we've got words to describe types of sex. There are moves to redefine terms like hetero and gay in philosophical idealist rather than materialist terms.
I'm interested to see how far the re definition has gone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't see that this has anything to do with your philosophical outlook.
Say you're correct and they are having heterosexual sex. Is that sex going to be different if the one with the penis is using a dildo?
In time, if the one with the penis undergoes gender reassignment, would the same two people still be having the same sort of sex? Is it possible for the same two people to have heterosexual AND lesbian sex?
Or should we just call it sex and leave them to it.
Unless they like to be watched of course.
The philosophical point is whether you are see ideas in people's heads or external reality as more important.
We can just call it sex, but we've got words to describe types of sex. There are moves to redefine terms like hetero and gay in philosophical idealist rather than materialist terms.
I'm interested to see how far the re definition has gone. "
Rarely will people agree on a definition.
Good choice of two people who identify as women irrespective of genital construction.
If you had chosen someone who identifies as female with a penis having sex with someone who identifies as male with a penis, it predictably will follow that the usual suspects will define it as gay.
There will be as many interpretations of what is what and what is not as there are forumites willing to express an opinion.
I see it as sex, irrespective of how the people involved (as they are people and not labels) define themselves for the benefit of others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
