Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Attraction seems rather subjective to me, we probably shouldn't make it an objective thing where there is a "problem" if someone does or does not find someone else attractive. We don't agree, yet again! And it's becoming less and less of a surprise to me whenever this happens. And I wasn't just talking about someone else, although I'm sure there is always at least one other person who considers that person sexually attractive. I was talking about a whole sex of people, whether men or women. Believe it or not, both sexes of people actually are sexually attractive. Both men AND women. You can always disagree with the truth, though, whenever you want to, which is probably why you do it so often on a whole range of issues.
mfbukowski Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 13 hours ago, bluebell said: Yes, it presumed that they once believed they had a testimony that they believed was the consequence of revelation. Still, not once
The Nehor Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 55 minutes ago, Ahab said: You're probably just one of those people who is creeped out by the idea of seeing people of the same sex as sexually attractive, with you thinking that only the opposite sex is, and even then only some and not all of them, probably. I thinks it's a problem when anyone sees only one sex as sexually attractive, because both sexes are, actually. If only one sex was attractive then the other sex wouldn't find it attractive. Nope, that is not it. I have been hit on by guys and take it as a compliment. It is the vocabulary you use and a vaguely detached serial killer-type vibe. 1
pogi Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: We don't agree, yet again! And it's becoming less and less of a surprise to me whenever this happens. And I wasn't just talking about someone else, although I'm sure there is always at least one other person who considers that person sexually attractive. I was talking about a whole sex of people, whether men or women. Believe it or not, both sexes of people actually are sexually attractive. Both men AND women. You can always disagree with the truth, though, whenever you want to, which is probably why you do it so often on a whole range of issues. I am confused. This is what you said: Quote I thinks it's a problem when anyone sees only one sex as sexually attractive, because both sexes are, actually It sounded to me like you were saying that is a problem that I only see females as sexually attractive, knowing that you find both men and women sexually attractive. I am simply saying, I personally don't, and that is not a problem. Attraction is subjective. That is my only point. You are not really arguing otherwise are you? If your only point is that each sex is attractive to someone...well, that goes without saying, or our race probably wouldn't survive very well.
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Nope, that is not it. I have been hit on by guys and take it as a compliment. It is the vocabulary you use and a vaguely detached serial killer-type vibe. Oh, that. Yeah that rubs some other people the wrong way too. So the challenge is for you to show an increase of love for me now. I'll be waiting, patiently.
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, pogi said: I am confused. This is what you said: "I thinks it's a problem when anyone sees only one sex as sexually attractive, because both sexes are, actually " It sounded to me like you were saying that is a problem that I only see females as sexually attractive, knowing that you find both men and women sexually attractive. I am simply saying, I personally don't, and that is not a problem. Attraction is subjective. That is my only point. You are not really arguing otherwise are you? If your only point is that each sex is attractive to someone...well, that goes without saying, or our race probably wouldn't survive very well. I was saying it is a problem not only for you to see ONLY women as sexually attractive, but also for anyone else to see ONLY one sex as sexually attractive. So yes it is a problem that you see only one sex as sexually attractive, since as a matter of fact, both sexes are. And my point is not only that each sex is attractive to someone, but that each sex is actually sexually attractive. And yes that fact does help our race to survive and thrive when everybody can notice that fact.
bluebell Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ahab said: I was saying it is a problem not only for you to see ONLY women as sexually attractive, but also for anyone else to see ONLY one sex as sexually attractive. So yes it is a problem that you see only one sex as sexually attractive, since as a matter of fact, both sexes are. And my point is not only that each sex is attractive to someone, but that each sex is actually sexually attractive. And yes that fact does help our race to survive and thrive when everybody can notice that fact. I’m confused. How does a man finding another man sexually attractive help our race survive and thrive? 2
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, bluebell said: I’m confused. How does a man finding another man sexually attractive help our race survive and thrive? I don't get it, either. A heterosexual can intellectually understand that someone of the same gender is physically attractive, but they aren't personally going to find that person sexually attractive. In the same way, I understand why people have different fetishes and are sexually aroused by them; that doesn't mean I'm going to be aroused by them, and it doesn't hurt our race's ability to survive and thrive that I'm not aroused by them. 2
smac97 Posted July 10, 2018 Author Posted July 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: And my point is not only that each sex is attractive to someone, but that each sex is actually sexually attractive. And yes that fact does help our race to survive and thrive when everybody can notice that fact. Except that same-sex attraction does not "help our race to survive and thrive." Same-sex attraction, if acted upon, is a biological dead-end. I recognize that, broadly speaking, men are "sexually attractive" to women, and women are "sexually attractive to men." These forms of attraction lead to the pitter-patter of little feet. But the same cannot be said for same-sex attraction. Thanks, -Smac 1
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I’m confused. How does a man finding another man sexually attractive help our race survive and thrive? As opposed to a man not having enough intelligence or spiritual awareness to see that he as a man, and other men generally, are sexually attractive? And see that women would see that they are, too? As well as being able to see that women are also sexually attractive? I'm thinking of how increased awareness and the ability to see that truth would help everybody, both men and women, to feel good about how attractive they are, rather than some being shy or reserved or lacking confidence about how attractive they are to everyone, generally. Instead of some men or women walking around feeling ashamed about seeing that members of their own sex are sexually attractive, as if there is something wrong with them for being able to see that, everyone would be supporting each other in that assessment and helping each other to see how best to capitalize on their own attraction to be able to attract the best mate they can have, which rather than being focused on which sex someone is would instead be more about which sex is best to hook up with, and why, with the increased intelligence and awareness leading to more and more men and women hooking up to create their own families that can reproduce their own children since that is the best possible reason for men and women to hook up with each other.
Exiled Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Ahab said: Do you also believe non-religious truth is simply a man-made invention defined by some non-religious group? I understand that each person decides for himself or herself what he/she believes is true and that groups of people are basically people who think the same thing. Deciding for yourself, yes, that is what you did on that occasion. You decided what you thought was true and then you felt a big relief because you no longer felt a need to make the choice either way because you had already decided for yourself what is true.. I wonder what would happen though it someday you thought you might like to change your mind, since you could go either way, any day of the week, since all you need to do is make a decision as o what you believe is the truth. If there were some credible evidence linking the maya or some other native american group to the middle east of 600 bc, I would reconsider. However, I would also need some explanation of other doctrines and practices too. I just think reliance on feelings is too tenuous, without more, as feelings are too readily misinterpreted. This is why, imo, the brethren always emphasize that personal revelation must agree with them to be valid. If not, the membership would go off in many different directions. But this begs the question of what's the point of personal revelation on weighty matters if the brethren have already told the membership what to think? It also calls into question the whole system of communication with God. It would seem if the communication system were a little better, more trustworthy, there would be no need for the caveat about answers in disageeement with the brethren as mistakes would be fewer.
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Exiled said: If there were some credible evidence linking the maya or some other native american group to the middle east of 600 bc, I would reconsider. However, I would also need some explanation of other doctrines and practices too. I just think reliance on feelings is too tenuous, without more, as feelings are too readily misinterpreted. This is why, imo, the brethren always emphasize that personal revelation must agree with them to be valid. If not, the membership would go off in many different directions. But this begs the question of what's the point of personal revelation on weighty matters if the brethren have already told the membership what to think? It also calls into question the whole system of communication with God. It would seem if the communication system were a little better, more trustworthy, there would be no need for the caveat about answers in disageeement with the brethren as mistakes would be fewer. My point was that people, including you, can choose what you want to believe. You're not being forced to agree with some other group of people. You can just decide for yourself what you want to believe. You don't need anyone other than you to make that choice. So given that situation, what happens when you want to, if you decide you might ever want to, change your own mind? Why would you ever do that? What would be the reason? Who might there be who could possibly influence your own choice? You can call into question any scenario you want to. You can decide for yourself that there is no supreme kind of being in all of existence and that it's all up to you to choose whatever you want to believe. Or you could exercise a particle of faith, some little feeling of certainty that you might possibly have that there might just be some kind of supreme being and that he can give you some ideas about things as you seek to gain some ideas from him. It's still all up to you, even if such a being exists. All he can do is give you some of his idea and maybe share some of his feelings with you. But he won't make you believe him, or even that he really exists.
pogi Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Ahab said: I was saying it is a problem not only for you to see ONLY women as sexually attractive, but also for anyone else to see ONLY one sex as sexually attractive. So yes it is a problem that you see only one sex as sexually attractive, since as a matter of fact, both sexes are. What is the "problem" exactly? Can you define it for me. It is not a "matter of fact" that both sexes are attractive to me. Again, what is the problem with that? As a matter of fact, men are not sexually attractive to me in the least. You are making a subjective judgment a matter of objectivity, when "in fact" it seems to be an abnormal characteristic for someone to be sexually attracted to both sexes, in just about all species... Of course, Ahab is the objective one with the only possible right answer (as if there was one!) as to what should be considered sexually attractive to an individual, and the rest of us (the majority of the human population - and animals) are the ones with the "problem"!
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, pogi said: What is the "problem" exactly? Can you define it for me. It is not a "matter of fact" that both sexes are attractive to me. Again, what is the problem with that? As a matter of fact, men are not sexually attractive to me in the least. You are making a subjective judgment a matter of objectivity, when "in fact" it seems to be an abnormal characteristic for someone to be sexually attracted to both sexes, in just about all species... Of course, Ahab is the objective one with the only possible right answer (as if there was one!) as to what should be considered sexually attractive to an individual, and the rest of us (the majority of the human population - and animals) are the ones with the "problem"! I have already stated what the problem is. The inability to see what is in fact true, whoever can't see it. Try out this little experiment: Ask a lot of women if they think men are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about men, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Once you have their responses, you'll have a general consensus from those women. But that's just their opinion, right? Maybe you'll need to keep asking more women until you get the general idea women have about men, generally. Now ask a lot of men the same question, if they think women are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about women, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Ask as many as you can, or gather their opinions somehow if not by asking them, until you feel sure you have the general consensus from men. Now combine those results and you'll have a collective idea of whether men and women are sexually attractive. I can tell you right now that most men will say women are, generally, and most women will say men are, generally. So taken together, that means both sexes are. Now take that to God and ask him to chime in with what he thinks about his children, both male and female. I can also tell you right now that God considers all of us to be sexually attractive creatures, all of his children. And it doesn't mean he wants to have sex with all of us. Just that he considers all of us to be sexually attractive. Some more or less than others, but all of us are, generally.
pogi Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Ahab said: I have already stated what the problem is. The inability to see what is in fact true, whoever can't see it. Try out this little experiment: Ask a lot of women if they think men are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about men, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Once you have their responses, you'll have a general consensus from those women. But that's just their opinion, right? Maybe you'll need to keep asking more women until you get the general idea women have about men, generally. Now ask a lot of men the same question, if they think women are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about women, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Ask as many as you can, or gather their opinions somehow if not by asking them, until you feel sure you have the general consensus from men. Now combine those results and you'll have a collective idea of whether men and women are sexually attractive. I can tell you right now that most men will say women are, generally, and most women will say men are, generally. So taken together, that means both sexes are. You are trying to extrapolate that because the opposite sex generally finds each other attractive, that the same sex should do the same...except...they just don't! (generally speaking). That is like saying, because I like the taste of balut, everyone should! It is a fact that is delicious, after all! Ask most Philippinos! Quote Now take that to God and ask him to chime in with what he thinks about his children, both male and female. I can also tell you right now that God considers all of us to be sexually attractive creatures, all of his children. And it doesn't mean he wants to have sex with all of us. Just that he considers all of us to be sexually attractive. Some more or less than others, but all of us are, generally. Ok, now you are just getting creepy, He is my dad!!! He made me to be sexually attractive to some, but most males would not see me that way - that is the way God made it. Are you saying that God was wrong for creating me to not be sexually attracted to males. I didn't choose for it to be this way, it has just always been this way - gay people will tell you the same thing, and they are right! They didn't choose it. Edited July 10, 2018 by pogi 1
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, pogi said: You are trying to extrapolate that because the opposite sex generally finds each other attractive, that the same sex should do the same...except...they just don't! (generally speaking). That is like saying, because I like the taste of balut, everyone should! It is a fact that is delicious, after all! Ask most Philippinos! You seem insistent on reducing everything to the subjective level by reducing what men and women are saying on the subjective level while preventing yourself from combining the results to see the issue objectively. Men and women are both sexually attractive, according to both men and women, and it is only on the subjective level that you can say that you do not consider men to be sexually attractive. Other than yourself, I presume you mean. Objectively speaking, you can not honestly say that, considering the evidence. 15 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok, now you are just getting creepy, He is my dad!!! He made me to be sexually attractive to some, but most males would not see me that way - that is the way God made it. Are you saying that God was wrong for creating me to not be sexually attracted to males. I didn't choose for it to be this way, it has just always been this way - gay people will tell you the same thing, and they are right! They didn't choose it. I'm sure that God would tell you that you are sexually attractive, whether or not some other men think you are. If you don't believe you are then find some women who will tell you that you are, or ask a man who sees that you are. Don't just base your opinion of yourself on what some men say who don't think you are. And consider the fact that you are, or you're not. You shouldn't be basing your knowledge of whether or not you are on just some particular people's subjective opinions.
Calm Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Quote The inability to see what is in fact true, whoever can't see it. Attraction is not some objective measurement that exists independent of the person experiencing it such as an individual's temperature or heartbeat. It is not True or False. If a person walks around covered in a sheet all the time, no one is going to rate him/her a "10" even if they would with the sheet off. A dog isn't going to see a human being as sexually attractive as opposed to being able to tell their body is warm simply because they don't think of humans that way. And it doesn't make them "wrong" or not as aware that they don't. Same rule with humans. Attractiveness is very much tied into cultural ideas, what is sexually attractive one century isn't the next, in one country not the same as around the world. If you are defining attractiveness as an objective measure that exists without the awareness and interpretation of the one looking as if it is the same kind of thing as body temperature that everyone will measure the same way (even if units vary such as Fahrenheit and centigrade), you are using the word differently than anyone else. 1
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: Attraction is not some objective measurement that exists independent of the person experiencing it such as an individual's temperature or heartbeat. It is not True or False. If a person walks around covered in a sheet all the time, no one is going to rate him/her a "10" even if they would with the sheet off. A dog isn't going to see a human being as sexually attractive as opposed to being able to tell their body is warm simply because they don't think of humans that way. And it doesn't make them "wrong" or not as aware that they don't. Same rule with humans. Attractiveness is very much tied into cultural ideas, what is sexually attractive one century isn't the next, in one country not the same as around the world. If you are defining attractiveness as an objective measure that exists without the awareness and interpretation of the one looking as if it is the same kind of thing as body temperature that everyone will measure the same way (even if units vary such as Fahrenheit and centigrade), you are using the word differently than anyone else. Again with trying to reduce something to the subjective level, only. I don't know why you would want to reduce anything to that. I say that if anyone sees you as an attractive person,, then you are, even if someone else doesn't see you that way. The reason being that at least one person sees that you are. If nobody saw you that way, however, then I suppose you would not be. And yes, I'm even talking about that person who walks around covered in a sheet all the time. That person is either attractive, or she is not. And yes maybe the problem is that some people are not using the word attractive in the same way that I am. I doubt that nobody else understands it as I do, though.
Calm Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Quote I don't know why you would want to reduce anything to that. Because that is what the word means. Not all words are labels of objective experience nor should they be because that would leave us unable to discuss subjective experiences. But it is just silly to pretend something can be objective when it is not defined that way. You can measure the brightness of a diamond, but there is no one definite measure of its attractiveness. Some people will like how it looks, some will love it, others will be indifferent, and still others will dislike it. I rarely find diamonds very attractive myself. I like stones with intense colour more, especially emeralds and sapphires. There is nothing wrong or right in my personal taste. Just because some people love diamonds doesn't mean everyone who doesn't is wrong. Edited July 10, 2018 by Calm
pogi Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: You seem insistent on reducing everything to the subjective level by reducing what men and women are saying on the subjective level while preventing yourself from combining the results to see the issue objectively. Men and women are both sexually attractive, according to both men and women, and it is only on the subjective level that you can say that you do not consider men to be sexually attractive. Other than yourself, I presume you mean. Objectively speaking, you can not honestly say that, considering the evidence. I don't know why I continue on with you... I guess I am bored, so lets keep going... Why the hell would you combine the results? That is not objective! The objective measure is to take each individual at their word! Read my cyber lips..."I don't find men sexually attractive." THAT is the objective AND subjective truth for me as an individual. You cannot "combine" the female reality with my reality and be objective about it. We are DIFFERENT. God made us DIFFERENT. You can't combine subjective truths to get some holistic objective truth for everybody!!! We all find different sexes and even different individuals attractive. Not every man, women, dog, cat, and horse thinks I am sexually attractive...thank God! That is ok. That is the objective truth. Quote I'm sure that God would tell you that you are sexually attractive, whether or not some other men think you are. If you don't believe you are then find some women who will tell you that you are, or ask a man who sees that you are. Don't just base your opinion of yourself on what some men say who don't think you are. And consider the fact that you are, or you're not. You shouldn't be basing your knowledge of whether or not you are on just some particular people's subjective opinions. Don't worry Ahab, I am not self-conscious about my level attractiveness. I am "pogi" after all! I don't need my daddy to convince me that I am attractive. Let's be honest though, if a poor soul was never found to be sexually attractive by any other living soul, do you think they are really going to believe or care about what their dad tells them? They shouldn't want to be sexually attractive to their father, so the fact that you are going there is...creepy!
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I don't know why I continue on with you... I guess I am bored, so lets keep going... Why the hell would you combine the results? That is not objective! The objective measure is to take each individual at their word! Read my cyber lips..."I don't find men sexually attractive." THAT is the objective AND subjective truth for me as an individual. You cannot "combine" the female reality with my reality and be objective about it. We are DIFFERENT. God made us DIFFERENT. You can't combine subjective truths to get some holistic objective truth for everybody!!! We all find different sexes and even different individuals attractive. Not every man, women, dog, cat, and horse thinks I am sexually attractive...thank God! That is ok. That is the objective truth. Ditto on your first response. And rather than because I am bored I think I would just like you to understand why I feel I am right about this. Hmm. What to say to you now. You seem insistent on not agreeing with what I have already told you. Hmm. How about this. When I think of something objectively I consider what everyone says about it, and not only what some people say subjectively, so to me that means a combination of Yes and No responses on this issue. Not only your No, but all of the Yes responses too. Which looks to me like some people are seeing what you do not see, with me being someone who considers most if not all people as sexually attractive, whether more or less than some others. I tend to look beyond the mere physical, though. I can often see beauty where many do not seem to see it. And I would prefer that everyone be able to see it. To see the beauty and attraction that everyone has to at least some extent. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Don't worry Ahab, I am not self-conscious about my level attractiveness. I am "pogi" after all! I don't need my daddy to convince me that I am attractive. Let's be honest though, if a poor soul was never found to be sexually attractive by any other living soul, do you think they are really going to believe or care about what their dad tells them? They shouldn't want to be sexually attractive to their father, so the fact that you are going there is...creepy! I'm referring to what God our Father thinks because I see him as the epitome of objective thinking, as well as subjective thought. He sees everything as it is for what it is, even when many do not agree with him. So what he thinks matters a lot to me.
The Nehor Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Ahab said: Oh, that. Yeah that rubs some other people the wrong way too. So the challenge is for you to show an increase of love for me now. I'll be waiting, patiently. I have to rebuke you with sharpness before that is required. I am not doing the time unless I do the crime.
california boy Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Ahab said: I have already stated what the problem is. The inability to see what is in fact true, whoever can't see it. Try out this little experiment: Ask a lot of women if they think men are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about men, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Once you have their responses, you'll have a general consensus from those women. But that's just their opinion, right? Maybe you'll need to keep asking more women until you get the general idea women have about men, generally. Now ask a lot of men the same question, if they think women are sexually attractive in some way. If there is anything about women, in general, which they consider to be sexually attractive. Ask as many as you can, or gather their opinions somehow if not by asking them, until you feel sure you have the general consensus from men. Now combine those results and you'll have a collective idea of whether men and women are sexually attractive. I can tell you right now that most men will say women are, generally, and most women will say men are, generally. So taken together, that means both sexes are. Now take that to God and ask him to chime in with what he thinks about his children, both male and female. I can also tell you right now that God considers all of us to be sexually attractive creatures, all of his children. And it doesn't mean he wants to have sex with all of us. Just that he considers all of us to be sexually attractive. Some more or less than others, but all of us are, generally.o Honestly, I think you are clueless about sexual attraction. You are looking at this strictly as someone who is bisexual. Of course I know what straight men think is attractive about women. I have known since adolescence what I am SUPPOSE to be turned on by. And for years I faked some kind of interest in those attributes. Yet nothing. A woman walking down the street naked would walk right on by me without any sexual response. A guy fully clothed walking right beside her could totally turn me on. This is not about not knowing what men are suppose to find attractive about a woman. This is about a totally lack of response even when I see all the physical "hot points" that are suppose to do something. And sorry, I don't believe for one minute that you know what God considers sexually attractive. Not even sure why you brought this up in this thread. 1
Ahab Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, california boy said: Honestly, I think you are clueless about sexual attraction. You are looking at this strictly as someone who is bisexual. Of course I know what straight men think is attractive about women. I have known since adolescence what I am SUPPOSE to be turned on by. And for years I faked some kind of interest in those attributes. Yet nothing. A woman walking down the street naked would walk right on by me without any sexual response. A guy fully clothed walking right beside her could totally turn me on. This is not about not knowing what men are suppose to find attractive about a woman. This is about a totally lack of response even when I see all the physical "hot points" that are suppose to do something. And sorry, I don't believe for one minute that you know what God considers sexually attractive. Not even sure why you brought this up in this thread. Yes, cb, I recognize you as someone who doesn't see what other people can see, particularly in regard to whether women are sexually attractive. And I think you would be much better off if you could see that women are also sexually attractive, and it isn't just men. Look on the first page for my 2nd post on this thread if you want to see what got me started on this. cinepro said something and smac responded and then I responded to cinepro's comments. I think I'm about done with this, though. There are a lot of trees in this forest. Edited July 10, 2018 by Ahab
Calm Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Quote And I would prefer that everyone be able to see it. To see the beauty and attraction that everyone has to at least some extent. I actually like the smell of fresh horse manure. I don't think anyone else is wrong if by chance they don't find the smell attractive. I don't believe I have to dislike the smell even if averyone else I know does. Just because someone wins a beauty pageant doesn't require anyone to view them as beautiful to them. It would be a real shame if beauty was based solely on majority rule because those old men and women who think their spouses are as handsome or as beautiful as the day they met them 50 years before would have to be believing their spouses were unattractive, maybe even ugly. You can see value in a person and love them dearly even if you don't find yourself the least bit of sexually attracted to them. You can recognize others may feel that way towards them even if you don't. Neither feeling is right or wrong.
Recommended Posts