Her being pansexual
Bella Thorne being a pansexual means that she is one of those few who has trascended the limitations of biology and is at a higher plane of existence. A higher level of consciousness.
Can’t imagine how liberating it must be.
It's a fancy term for trysexual
sharenah it is the pinnacle of human evolution. a true elevation of consciousness
shareIt's another way to say, "my career stalled what can I claim to try and get some quick publicity"... these women that suddenly become lesbians or bi, or pansexual or whatever the word of the day is, are pathetic. They really are insulting to people that really are lesbians because they help to perpetuate the belief that sexual orientation is something a person can change anytime they want.
shareThey really are insulting to people that really are lesbians because they help to perpetuate the method that sexual orientation is something a person can change anytime they want.
You didn't get the memo? Even the Rainbow Reich are admitting they can change sexual orientation any time they want:
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/can-sexuality-change-what-sexual-fluidity-is-and-is-not-0624187
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a20662770/what-is-sexually-fluid/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3593702/Female-sexuality-fluid-male-New-study-claims-trait-developed-reduce-conflict-tension-men-multiple-wives.html
https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/sex-and-love/sexually-fluid-meaning
https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/sexual-fluidity
It's hilarious because even the far-Left loonies don't even ascribe to the notion that sexual orientation is fixed, despite pushing the now debunked "born this way" hoax back in the 1980s:
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf share
You've just fallen for a real hoax if you believe that crap. If you are straight do you really think you can suddenly decide you enjoy sex with the same sex? Sorry but that notion makes zero sense, you could get a straight guy, tie him up and let guys fuck the hell out of him but he isn't going to like it or end it all by saying please butt fuck me again. Your orientation is what it is and you can't change it anymore than a black man can become white or a white man can become black. You are what you are.
shareYou've just fallen for a real hoax if you believe that crap. If you are straight do you really think you can suddenly decide you enjoy sex with the same sex?
This guy did:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/husband-secret-life-advice.html
These guys did:
https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/i-found-out-my-husband-is-gay/
These guys did:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/03/did-i-ever-really-know-him-the-women-who-married-gay-men
So did these guys:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33382824
This woman, after nearly 10 years of marriage to a man, got wooed by her lesbian friend:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/22/3
And this woman decided to go gay after 30 years of marriage and several kids later:
https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/savage-love-my-wife-came-out-as-a-lesbian-after-30-years-of-marriage/Content?oid=36940751
So yes, real life proves you wrong, but do go ahead and concoct the most elaborate mental gymnastics to deny reality, it's something today's millennials have been brainwashed to do.
And unfortunately you fit into a psychological profile where no matter how many studies, empirical examples, and irrefutable neurophysiological research I produce, (which will come in my next reply to your upcoming denial of the examples I just gave you) you will never be convinced because you're mentally incapable of changing your position, it's how you've been inculcated by the system. You literally cannot change your view, and I will be proven 100% correct about this in your following reply.
you could get a straight guy, tie him up and let guys fuck the hell out of him but he isn't going to like it or end it all by saying please butt fuck me again
Actually, that's exactly what happened to this rape victim in prison, who was held down and raped multiple times, and came out of the experience a bisexual:
https://archive.is/wip/UeVM7
Quick question: do you ever get tired of being proven wrong by irrefutable facts? share
You just proved me correct dumbass. When you said I will never be convinced by any of your studies, that same things holds to to people and their sexual preference. You will never change some people because it cannot be done. But go pull more bullshit studies out of your ass if they make you feel good... doesn't mean they are valid.
shareWhen you said I will never be convinced by any of your studies, that same things holds to to people and their sexual preference.
And it doesn't apply to any of the examples, studies or research I provided, meaning you're not just wrong you're living in a delusional fantasy world where you ignore every fact that doesn't adhere to your extremely limited, anti-ontological views.
You will never change some people because it cannot be done.
Reality proves otherwise.
But go pull more bullshit studies out of your ass if they make you feel good... doesn't mean they are valid.
Peer reviewed reports dictate that they contain a measure of validity. The reality is that people aren't born with a hard-wired psychological preference, it's adapted based on epigenetics. Why? Because the limbic system isn't fully formed during the embryonic phase and the hypothalamus has less than 20% of its adult cells developed during perinatal development. You can read about it here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7643957/
It's responsible for secreting endocrines from the pituitary gland known as gonadotropin:
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Endocrine_-_Hypothalamus_Development
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-020-0370-8
In short, sexual attraction is based on developed senses when gonadotropin is secreted, which happens during the formative post-natal years. Additionally, these perceptions can be altered and changed by trauma, dopamine, drugs, etc., as I linked the case of the guy turning gay due to prison rape.
Typically as people resolve their traumas and get treatment for their emotional shortcomings, they sync into a stable lifestyle, which is why 80% of bisexuals ended up changing 100% into heterosexuals later in life:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/over-80-percent-of-bisexuals-end-up-in-straight-relationships-why.html
Checkmate, 'ole chum.
share
So what are you saying in general cyguration, that homosexuality is a choice and that they are not born that way?
share100%.
It is literally physiologically impossible to be born gay, because the human neurology necessary to determine sexual attraction has not been developed at that stage of birth. There just isn't enough cell structure there.
Even the Left-wing propagandists had to admit there is no gay gene:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
After that avenue went bust they decided to study genetic traits in grown adults. The so-called genetic cues they picked up on from homosexuals were epigenetic traits (ergo, post-natal changes in phenotype based on environmental stimuli).
What did they find? That there were traces within many gay men associated with overuse of cannabis and alcohol, which fits in line with studies indicating that homosexuals and those within the LGBT spectrum are heavy substance abusers:
https://archive.is/rXYPi
https://archive.is/lQNLA
But then that means that heterosexuality is just as normal/valid as homosexuality no?
shareHeterosexuality is biological essentialism for human existence.
Men and women are sexually dimorphmic, men inseminate, women can be inseminated. During puberty as gonadotropin is secreting like crazy and the sex drives are in full bloom, most people naturally gravitate toward the opposite sex to fulfill said essentialism.
Women naturally seek safety and security provided by someone (viz., protection under a man).
Men naturally seek to secure sustenance for survival and as a way to release sexual buildup (viz., comfort from a woman).
Due to these antipodes biological traits the natural laws of attraction pair men with women, again, as a necessary and essential part of the cycle (and circle) of life.
There's a myriad of other variables involved but not necessary to the discussion.
Homosexuality, however, is the opposite of that. It's not essential for procreation and for men, an unnatural outcome usually coerced or manipulated to disorient their sexual preferences (typically abuse during childhood according to most studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/).
For women homosexuality is usually induced by environmental means, which is why they're quicker to hop from hetero to bi to full-on lesbian depending on their emotional state, friends, bad break-ups, abuse, trauma, etc.
Even still, they make up an extremely tiny portion of the demographic. Gays only make up 1.3% of the population and lesbians 1.2% of the population, so by definition of demographic figures, they are an abnormal population figure. But what's more, they're a very socially disruptive figure, with gay men making up 67% of all STD cases per capita:
https://archive.is/b1kAx
...and bisexual women are not far behind:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2530417
So I wouldn't really say it's "valid" or "normal" based on the high depression, suicide, and disease rates:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2009.177329
But you are not born heterosexual nor homosexual which is very much what follows from what you said in your previous post:
It is literally physiologically impossible to be born gay, because the human neurology necessary to determine sexual attraction has not been developed at that stage of birth.
The dimorphmic nature of humanity has no bearing on that. You are setting things up to favor your point of view by talking about women or men "naturally" seeking things when those things are mostly social constructs that come from culture.
If you let a person develop with no physical or cultural restrains that person would achieve the most natural and indeed higher state: pansexual (to tie things back to the topic of this thread). Being exclusively heterosexual or homosexual is not the default state but a constraints imposed by external factors. The default is pansexual.
share
The dimorphmic nature of humanity has no bearing on that.
Yes, because without it humans wouldn't feel compelled to be attracted to one another and procreate and humanity would have selectively bred itself out of existence millions of years ago.
You are setting things up to favor your point of view by talking about women or men "naturally" seeking things when those things are mostly social constructs that come from culture.
Testes and ovaries are not social constructs, son. Gonadotropin is not a social construct. Synaptic responses based on environmental stimuli that alters how a woman deals with PMS, the fact that she can get pregnant, or a man can get an erection are not social constructs. Those are biological facts, and they are literally part of the physiological dimorphism that separates men from women on a fundamentally basic genetic level. Before there were even cultures there were living organisms and HOW do you think men and women procreated WITHOUT established civilized cultures millions of years ago?
If you let a person develop with no physical or cultural restrains that person would achieve the most natural and indeed higher state: pansexual
That would mean bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and coprophilia are natural states. However those things are NOT, and are all harmful for humans. Just because you CAN do something in nature does not mean you SHOULD nor does it mean it's natural or good, as evident by the statistics showing that everyone on the LGBT spectrum seems to be suffering from some kind of mental illness, suicidal thoughts, depression, and oftentimes cannot hold down long lasting or fulfilling relationships, as evident with this study:
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/4315111.pdf
Also lesbians have the highest domestic abuse rates per capita out of any pairing, showing it's dangerous and unhealthy:
https://archive.is/Vulp2/ share
[deleted]
Using single links to draw extremely broad conclusions, and then editorializing by adding your own heavily biased interpreations of those single links is not how real science operates
Funny how posters here always bitch about woke propaganda when there are literal bigotry propagandists on here
Using single links to draw extremely broad conclusions, and then editorializing by adding your own heavily biased interpreations of those single links is not how real science operates
Doesn't matter how many links I use.... they all reinforce my point, which is irrefutable. share
Of course it matters. You're using one link PER point
You're making a ton of claims and cherrypicking bits of data to draw universal conclusions
It might fool the morons that frequent these boards, but it would never fool real scientists
Of course it matters. You're using one link PER point
I have multiple links for multiple points. I reduced it to mostly using one relevant/credible link to save on space time, but here's some more literature for you:
• https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA598332375&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=HRCA&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eb49a662c
• https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20190829/there-is-no-gay-gene-major-study-concludes
• https://www.livescience.com/no-single-gene-makes-someone-gay.html
And here are more links for you:
• https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
• https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf
• https://wentworthreport.com/2017/01/08/rate-of-domestic-violence-highest-in-lesbian-relationships/
And a few more:
• https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/4315111.pdf
• https://carm.org/homosexuality/statistics-on-sexual-promiscuity-among-homosexuals/
• https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc276217/m1/3/
• https://contexts.org/blog/an-unequal-distribution-of-partners-gays-versus-straights/ share
When biologists speak of the gene for something it's usually meant to be figurative
Of course there is no gay gene. Sexuality is way too complex to be determined by a single gene
That's not remotely the same as proving that genetics don't play a role in sexuality
As for the health outcomes of certain lifestyles, one cannot definitively prove that. Cultural and sociological factors don't play a role in the data. You cannot say that there is something inherent about lesbianism that when ALL other. variables are held constant, makes them inherently violent
It'd be like claiming that police officers are biologically proven to be more violent because of their domestic abuse rates. It's just a silly conclusion to draw from someone inexperienced with interpreting raw data
Don't quit school, kid 😬
That's not remotely the same as proving that genetics don't play a role in sexuality
They don't. There is not only no single gay gene, there are no gay gene clusters, there are no allele strands that remotely relate to homosexuality in any way during the pre and peri-natal stages of development in utero.
There is literally no way to be genetically affected into homosexuality at birth. There was never any proof that it did, and there never will be, either in biogenetics, neurophysiology, nor endocrinology.
But since you believe there is some genetic component attached, feel free to find ONE peer reviewed report aligning just one genetic protein to homosexuality during prenatal development.
It's been over 40 years since the claim has been made, so I'm sure you can find one piece of literature that supports your claim, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Have at it. share
Why are you phrasing the question so specifically lol?
Why would I need to find genetic markets that relate to embryo development?
That implies that we know how to determine when any individual's sexual orientation is determined, but we don't. Not for gay, straight, , bi etc.
There is not even a concrete way of defining these terms other than self reporting
And you are making specific claims too. That homosexuality is worse for the individual, that lesbians are more violent, etc. But you are not providing BIOLOGICAL proof of any of this
Statistical "proof" isn't the same. Under different environments those trends may vanish. Hence you have proven nothing other than that researchers compile sociological statistical data
It's funny that you challenge me to provide very specific biological proof but you don't hold yourself to that standard when you paint in your broad strokes
You're not just bad at science, you're dishonest
Why would I need to find genetic markets that relate to embryo development?
Because that's how genetic influence works, otherwise it's epigenetic, influenced by environment.
We have genetic markers for height, intelligence, weight, and a number of other physiological traits. If you're claiming that homosexuality is influenced by genes, then the onus is on the claimant to show evidence of these markers.
That implies that we know how to determine when any individual's sexual orientation is determined, but we don't. Not for gay, straight, , bi etc.
No, it means you have evidence there's a genetic component. Or are you admitting it's conjecture not based on any kind of observable facts?
share
That's not what epigenetic means 😭
Epigenetic changes are changes to gene expression via regulatory mechanisms
The environment CAN induce epigenetic effects, but epigenetic is not synonymous with environmental
I've entertained your lame attempts to rationalize your biases long enough, so I'll make it real simple
If you believe you've amassed enough google research to irrefutably prove that human homosexuality. is NEVER correlated to genetics, then you should go down to your nearest university and ask them to submit your stuff to a scientific journal
Then sit back and wait for your Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 😭
Because that is how grandiose your claims are
The environment CAN induce epigenetic effects, but epigenetic is not synonymous with environmental
No one said it was. Re-read what I wrote.
Because that is how grandiose your claims are
There's nothing grandiose, only what the science says.
You made a claim. I asked you to back it up with proof.
Unlike you, I'm more than open to have my mind changed with a simple peer reviewed paper that shows ANY kind of in utero genetic markers that determine homosexuality as you've claimed.
You've waded into non-sequiturs, equivocation, and rhetorical semantics. The thing you haven't done is back up your point with any kind of observable facts. None.
Leads me to believe even you don't believe homosexuality is genetic since there's zero proof in any of the hard sciences that it is. If you believe otherwise, I still implore you to submit your evidence.
I'm waiting...
share
Find me in utero genetic markers for heterosexuality lol
Stop cosplaying as someone with an education
Find me in utero genetic markers for heterosexuality lol
There aren't any. share
I know. So then is your assertion that sexuality is a completely blank slate determined by the environment and experience? If so, I don't agree, but I do agree that it's possible
So from here the argument becomes uninteresting
You can bring up a bunch of statistical data about why it's better to be straight, but since those won't be rooted in physical explanations, there will remain the possibility that they are due to sociological /psychic/cultural causes. In other words, the environment
Since the environment for everyone is mutable, there is no real argument for claiming that LGBTQ is inherently bad. It may become neutral or good depending on the circumstances
At which point you are now in the unofficial position of most scientists
Checkmate. GG
It may become neutral or good depending on the circumstances
In the realm of Natural Selection, there is nothing good about being a genetic dead-end. share
Okay, so I am nitpicking here because I do want to get into a conversation with you about homosexuality because you don't want to converse you want to be right. But with this comment
as evident by the statistics showing that everyone on the LGBT spectrum seems to be suffering from some kind of mental illness, suicidal thoughts, depression,
did you ever stop to consider that perhaps there are suicidal thoughts and depression is that in many places it is still a taboo to be LGBTQ? I mean just look around at comments on this site. There are really negative comments towards gay people here. share
did you ever stop to consider that perhaps there are suicidal thoughts and depression is that in many places it is still a taboo to be LGBTQ?
Depression and suicide is actually worse in gay only communities:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-02346-001 share
And yet there is also this about social media
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477910/
Or we can say that white men are most at risk
https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2021/july/men-and-suicide-why-are-white-men-most-at-risk-/
We can all find studies that agree with whatever point we are trying to make. Look. I just found some on how being kind is beneficial.
https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/the-art-of-kindness
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/kindness/kindness-matters-guide
https://www.dartmouth.edu/wellness/emotional/rakhealthfacts.pdf
None of what you posted is incorrect, though.
It fits in line with my points rather well.
Which points are you referring to? I'm saying that there are many reasons why people are depressed and suicidal, and a lot of those reasons have nothing to do with their sexuality. People who are accepted for who they are, are much more likely to have a better place in mental health. When society makes people feel badly, or inadequate, that can make cases worse.
There are also many other reasons why people can suffer with mental illness. There is no one reason. I think that if we just strive to be more kind to ourselves and to each other, the world could be a better place in many ways.
An aside here that I'm not going to respond to. Not once did I ever decide who I was attracted to. I now refer to myself as pan after almost 30 years of saying I was bi, because I have met, and have been incredibly attracted to more than one trans individual. It wasn't something that was planned or a choice. It just is.
Fancy term for bisexual anyway most Women are bi whether they say it or not
share