English speaking people.Why is the definition so narrow?
Who defined it as such?
Why is "wood" defined as wood? Why can't it include rocks? A lot of rocks look like wood.
English speaking people.Why is the definition so narrow?
Who defined it as such?
English speaking people.
Why is "wood" defined as wood? Why can't it include rocks? A lot of rocks look like wood.
Why are you frightened to answer the questions?.
I did. English speaking people defined that term narrowly. I know you want it to mean something different - but it in fact doesn't.
Then you should accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation because they claim, like LGBT'ers, that they do not choose their behavior.Their claim is they are born that way.
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun
noun: sexual orientation; plural noun: sexual orientations
"a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."
What does that post have to do with sexual orientation?
iceaura,
Then you should accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation because they claim, like LGBT'ers, that they do not choose their behavior.Their claim is they are born that way.
I take you don't, but the question remains. Why?
jan.
Why is the definition so narrow?
Who defined it as such?
Why can't other sexual behaviors be defined as such given the definitve scope of the words contained in the phrase?
jan.
I expect that there will be a redefinition of "sexual orientation" followed by an attempted conflation of pedophiles and homosexuals. He will then argue "well if you are OK with homosexuals you must be OK with pedophiles!"Why do you even bring this up?
I expect that there will be a redefinition of "sexual orientation" followed by an attempted conflation of pedophiles and homosexuals. He will then argue "well if you are OK with homosexuals you must be OK with pedophiles!"
(Now that I have mentioned this, he will deny it and say "no I was just asking questions.")
Same definition. Sexual orientation is a matter of attraction to gender/genders. So what's the problem? Pedophilia obviously doesn't fit that definition.
Even if it did...so what? What's the point our hateful friend is trying to make?
That's not how "sexual orientation" is defined. But that is beside your point, obviously.jan said:Then you should accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation because they claim, like LGBT'ers, that they do not choose their behavior.Their claim is they are born that way.
Why what? Why don't I accept child abuse and similar betrayals? Why would I?jan said:I take you don't, but the question remains. Why?
Same definition. Sexual orientation is a matter of attraction to gender/genders.
So what's the problem? Pedophilia obviously doesn't fit that definition.
Why not take this question to the Linguistics subforum, where it is relevant and might attract suitable attention?jan said:Why is the term sexual orientation only limited to attraction to genders?
Why is the definition so narrow?
Who defined it as such?
Why is the term sexual orientation only limited to attraction to genders?