Page 1 of 1

Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:28 pm
by Haunter
Well, let's turn ourselves to philosophers for a while... :D

Usually one defines an orientation, namely a preference for sexual partners, as straight, bi-man, bi-woman, gay, lesbian etc. But what do they mean? What do these have in common? They refer to the physical nature of the partner, that is his/her gender. Ok, let's label this as "level 0".
What does prevent one from stepping up to "level 1"? For example, a male might like only... Bi-women! So he is interested, further than in the physical nature of his partner, on her preferences. Or maybe he could be only attracted to, say, lesbians: maybe knowing she is attracted only to women is a huge turn on for him! You cannot tell him he's wrong, it's a perfect respectable line!
Good. Going further on, one could step up and reach "level 3". An example: we could have a man who is attracted (only) by... Women who are attracted (only) by... Bi-women. Also this, even if more sophisticated, is a perfect clear preference. It's just one step beyond "level 2".

What I'm picturing is that going on one could build a matrioska-game complicated at will, in which all sexual preferences are of course more and more unusual but legitimate. I guess the very first steps might occur in real life, somewhere.
Have you ever thought to this this way? :lol:

PS I'm not a pervert. More likely a free thinker/mathmatician ;)

Re: Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:59 pm
by FarmerDan
Apparently you haven't yet discovered​ that human sexuality is a spectrum that defies convenient classification, in the same way that all the faces in the world are different.

By trying to classify people you are only limiting yourself

Re: Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:02 pm
by Haunter
Well, you're right: one can't prove my extended meta-classification covers all cases (I too think it doesn't, due to immense variety in possible tastes in mankind), but the fun fact I observed is that, even if tangling and weird, it states true possibilities. Maybe on a practical application interesting cases would be low in numbers, but that's good as well. It's a nice (theorical) insight on possible psicological legitimate preferences. Let's take it more as a (true) game rather than general phisical-herotic rules :)

Re: Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:24 am
by French Lover
One of my best friend is bisexual. She says she's a woman who likes women who likes men who likes women... but not only ;)

This is a classic of the queer community, at least in France.

Re: Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:53 am
by Haunter
French Lover wrote:One of my best friend is bisexual. She says she's a woman who likes women who likes men who likes women... but not only ;)

This is a classic of the queer community, at least in France.

Thank you French Lover! Your friend supports my thinking :D
Any further example is welcomed

Re: Deeper Metathinking (warning: your brain might tangle!!)

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:06 pm
by fantasizing-realist
There's a fine line between philosophy and stoner logic. You just shot yourself five miles past that lien out of a cannon.