This entire article is hilarious

[LemmingofGlory]

EDIT:

Wrong.

You are confusing sexuality with relationships.

It disgusts me that you even made that post. I would like to think that were all mature enough now here to not play the dirty semantics game where we redifine words with set definitions just so we can tell someone else they are wrong.

Since this post has been up a day and you haven't clarified things yet, I've had a day to try and puzzle out what the blazes could lead you to make such an accusation. Franky, I think it comes from a magnificient failure to understand my post.

I don't believe I redefined anything. I didn't play any "dirty semantics" game just so I could tell Malakar he's wrong. (In fact, did I? I think I just disagreed with him.) Since your "immature ploy to be right" revolves around making accusations without spelling out your objections (i.e. you did not specify with which word/s I'm playing "the dirty semantics game") -- and for some reason this strikes me as typical of your posting style, which makes me consider you a rather useless Lurker, all things considered -- I'll have to play another game in order to reply to you: the elementary school guessing game.

Ghostiger: I know something you don't know. You're wrong.

Maybe if you spelled out your objections instead of drooling them out, you might realize half-way through what I was actually doing and my so-called "semantics game" might seem irritating, but not necessarily as vulgar as you would have everyone believe.

Now, my best guess is your object is to the line: "I wouldn't even call it homosexuality, precisely, unless the person is homosexual; I'd call it same-sex sex." My point was to avoid labeling something "homosexuality" so that the term and "homosexual" would not become mingled. Granted, any type of same-sex sex can be called "homosexual," from sex between two lesbians to prison sex between two heterosexuals. However, for the purpose of my post I wanted to avoid that indistinction (i.e. labeling by action) in favor of labeling by sexuality (what you might call a person's "nature").

You might now be wondering WHY BOTHER? Because I wasn't sure how Malakar was using the term "beastiality." He compared it to "discovering homosexuality" in a relationship, which to me means discovering something about a person's nature (i.e. that the person is homosexual). Does that, by extension, mean that he views beastiality in the same light? I don't know. I'm not well-read on the subject, so I assumed that beastiality is an activity instead of an orientation.

Of course, "discovering homosexuality" could also mean discovering a wealth of other things such as:
(1) Discovering that one's partner uses homosexual pornography
(2) Discovering that one's partner is interested in homosexual experiences
(3) Discovering that one's partner has had homosexual experiences
(4) Discovering that one's partner is being unfaithful with someone of the same sex
...but is not homosexual (which by Wikipedia's definition is exclusive). The partner could be bisexual, straight, "curious," or some label other than "homosexual."

And as I said in my previous post, if it's any of these things, the situation is just something that needs to be worked out with one's partner. Likewise, "discovering beastiality" could mean any of those things I listed above (but with respect to animals instead of the same sex), and it's just something that needs to be worked out. It's not something that I think would benefit from being "out in the open," unlike homosexuality.

Another problem is that you think you can describe people based on dichotmous points. Sexuality(sexualities?) like almost all drives in people fall on a clines. The persons nature is the sum of these cline points with respect any given element.

Go lecture someone else, Ghostliar.

-Lem