Feelin' attracted by aliens ?

to awnser this...you have to awnser the question.."is there absolute truth?" With out that, then you can not argue morality or goodness or badness of an act. I, personally, believe in absolute truths, or the belief that there are just some things that ARE true for the sake that they are TRUE, not because of a perspectve. I believe that nature itself tells us that sexual acts with beasts is an absolute wrong. Not only can nothing come of your actions, but some of ouor worst diseases come from this type of treatment to animals. Man knows right from wrong. In all tribes and in all peoples around the world, there are laws that protect both the sanctity and uniqueness of the human being. Even in societies where there was human sacrifice, there were strict rules gurding it. Also, even if there was a culture out there that believed that Poligomy, (having more than one spouse) is right, there were still social laws that said that it was not right to have sexual relations with anyones wife. Only now, with our culture attempting to be as bad as it possibly can be, trying to prove to itself that it is not bound by any law higher than itself, are we breaking the boundaries of absolute truth. And look at us, we are a society of completely miserable wretches, who are selfish, arrogant, and completely lost to the fact that there IS somthing bigger than ourselves. this is probablly confusing because I'm writing this really late in my day, but I only have a couple more things to add. You do not have to believe in God, nor hold any other religeous belief of any kind to recognize absolute truth, however my belief is that Absolute truth would not exist without God. And That it does exist means that God exists. In SW, I see it as being different. Species should not cross procreate, not because of fear of disease or causing mutates which destroy the "arian" race that George Lucas has created for our heroes. It is because it goes beyond the boundries of right and wrong...It doesn't just matter if the parts line up...with a little work, you can fit a square peg in a round hole, but it matters that it is wrong in it's own sake. You can say this is my belief...and wether or not anyone else believes it or not, it still will be true...besides, I truly don't believe in Aliens, so this is just a pointless debate anyway.

P.S- I do, however, believe that inter-racial relationships are truly some of the most beautiful things in the world. I think that that (and God's time) is the true salution to bigotry and rascism. Species are different than races...

 

As I stated before, I was devil advocating, it may or may not be my own views, but I refuse to bring my own religious beliefs into the discussion, as to keep from breaking forum policy, which can becoming a flame war, and "crusade" by some people that latch onto things which they don't agree with.

In that purpose I go for a More Politically correct approach by going by Modern Oppinions on such matters as is seen by laws in the nation, and populer scientific theory. Which is not found to be the least offensive, and least prejudiced by board rules(no way shape or form does that mean I believe those, that's why I am devil advocating).

Which is why it's against the rules to say or do anything that people find offensive, which I was using allegories, not meaning to accuse anyone from being of any party. This rule is not for moral, ethical, or religious debating, when pertaining to ones sexual prefrences. ones oppinions can be found insulting, or analgous to other culturally beliefs. To put those down, using words with "Hate"(excuse me rpc, this is not intended be pointed at you anymore, since you appoligzed to me.), is against board policy. One more thing to remember this is fiction, the authors used stories showing interspecies racism(exe. MAS with gavin and asyr), to try to show a moral lesson. One that applies to how people are still treated on earth. Including some friends of mine who were cruly mistreated and insulted as being perverted, for just being interacially married, in the south east. (yes it still exists in some places of the US.) human earth authors using Analogies based on earth history and cultures,to show cruelty in this nature. so that's was the point to putting in star wars.

If I was to follow my primary beliefs, people would most likely be offended, and I refuse to do that in this place.

Board rule(part of the rules):
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this board." board rules.

I refuse to show my true oppinions, because of board rules. But I can honestly say, I do not practice bestiality, pedifilia, homosexuality, or any other things that some might find morally unsound in there own Moral beliefs. for you or them to try to push or force there beliefs on others, is far from Polictically correct. Follow your own beliefs, but refrain from using Condecending remarks, on others sexual preferences.

Saying that, I leave it at this, I think in nature of political correctioness, if the parties are 2 concenting adults, they can choose what they want to do, and it's not my business to butt in or harrass them.

If it's an adult trying to coerce a child or an animal(note definition of animal only covers non-sensient lifeforms, and beast refers to non sensient animals as well, see quote.), who is not old enought, or smart enough to know what it's doing, then that is wrong.(note child means it's not an adult. Law sets age of when one becomes an audlt.

"beast
1 a : a four-footed mammal as distinguished from a human being, a lower vertebrate, and an invertebrate b : a lower animal as distinguished from a human being c : an animal as distinguished from a plant d : an animal under human control"

beastiality, and zoophilia only refer to things that are attraction to animals:

"Main Entry: zoo·phil·ic
Pronunciation: "zO-&-'fi-lik
Variant(s): or zo·oph·i·lous /zO-'ä-f&-l&s, z&-'wä-/
Function: adjective
Date: 1886
: having an attraction to or preference for animals; especially of an insect : preferring animals to humans as a source of food

Main Entry: bes·ti·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "bes-chE-'a-l&-tE, "besh-, "bEs-, "bEsh-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 : the condition or status of a lower

 

i actually enjoyed that debate...good, strong debate is rather lacking in this forum, which is why i do not frequent it nearly as much anymore...i tip my hat to both of you.
I personally believe that their is a line that must be drawn through inter-speices intercourse.
humanoid species that are compatabile to an extent biologically, should proceed with care when engaging in intercourse, as any progeny they create may be a mutated, cross bred whelp that is tortuted by a sense of difference, and quite possibly, physically and mental defects, not to mention illness.
and with non-compatable species - for instance, a hutt and a human, well, that is along the same lines as zoöphilia....
it is a thin and treachorous path to walk down, but for those who are besotted by love, it may be worth the risk...i personally would of condoned and loved to see Gavin and Asyr continue their relationship, yet on the other hand i am sure no one will dissagree that Jabba and his numerous humanoid girls is just plain wrong.

 

" Freezze you dumb wookie!" "Put down that blaster!AHHHH!!!!!!!!" *Wookie ripes head off* I'm in that Imperial mood now!*anouther Officer comes in* * Wook chases officer* Help me somebody on this post! Give me something!

 

I know Im walking into the end of this... but I will first say that Im taking the Imperialistic attitude. No aliens.

But the GFFA is a fictional universe which has evolved, not been created by a god, God, or holy being (exluding GL who some see as a god...). Sentient aliens and humans are on the same plain. Marriage and relations between two species, lets say, a human and bothan, cannot be seen as immoral except by the customs or religions of those cultures. I fail to grasp the understanding there. In the GFFA, if two people love each other, if they can reproduce or not, human & bothan, alien or other, should only be prohibited by social mores or customs (and maybe not even then) that have evolved from that species. (Once again, I remind every one this is a fictional universe - I refuse to bring my personal earthly religious beliefs into this argument)

... ok, Im done ranting now... thanx!

 

Asyr and Gavin are consenting adult sentient species. The problem with Jabba is that the 'girls' are under the threat of death. If they found Jabba irresistible of their own free will, it would be a different story. That is also the problem with bestiality, that there is no mutual consent. However, In the GFFA universe, one cannot regard aliens as beasts because they are sentient beings. It is clear from the books that the differences between sentient species there are seen much as racial differences are seen on our planet, and that the Empire is ,in fact, racist in its treatment of aliens as lesser beings.

Now how about relationships between these beings? We can hardly apply our social or religious rules to a reality so different from ours. There are no sentient aliens on earth that we know of, but if there were, I'll bet our rules and religions would have found a loophole for this kind of thing, because they deal with reality!

 

exactly, lancejade, and darth tuna.

 

III_Vir...
"In this sense, "xenophilia" can be used---accurately, one might add---to signify sexual attraction to or acts of sexual nature with an alien. If you take exception to the use of that term, then the terms "zoöphilia" or "bestiality" can be used."

The hole in your arguement, is that xenophilia is not equal to either zoophilia or bestiality. Both zoophilia and bestiality are forms of xenophilia, yet xenophilia is a much broader generalization. While zoophilia and bestiality may be interchangeable with each other, they are not interchangeable with xenophilia.

If reproduction is the end to the means of sexual interaction, then all complementary species are fair game. However, it may be hard for some to comprehend that as there are generally no other species that "humans" can reproduce with on earth. So, in effect, a Bothan and a human is a fairly alien concept to us and is not at all comparable to Jethro and his farm animals.

T.C.: Hey, Jethro, did you spend a lot of money on your date last night?
Jethro: Nah, she was pretty sheep.

 

"Jethro and his sheep"

Ghengis, LOL, and good points, from your posts concept.

 

III_Vir...
"It is theorised by some, in fact, that this is the source of the HIV/AIDS."

Meaningless to the discussion. It has also been theorized by some that HIV/AIDS is an act of God, a CIA biological weapon and several other theories as equally unsubstantiated as people engaged in monkey-business on the Sarengetti.

 

Uh....no
You scare me.

 

Genghis12---now you have struck a major point. If another race---i.e. Chiss---can reproduce with stock humans, then it is not a question of perversion, but rather whether the participants concern themselves with absurd racial or ethical boundaries. That is different than a separate species---i.e., Falleen---engaging in sexual acts with a stock human, which was the point being argued.

Concerning the use of terms, the point is conceded.

 

III_Vir_RPC let me be shore that I understand you correctly. If a human woman had had an accident during her child hood that rendered her incapable of having children, would you then believe that her having any type of sexual relationship with another consenting human adult to be wrong? Please give more than a one word answer to this question, I whish to understand your reasoning on this matter.

 

III_Vir...
"That is different than a separate species---i.e., Falleen---engaging in sexual acts with a stock human, which was the point being argued."

Which is also the point I was arguing. There are two issues to concern oneself with: 1- the perpetuation of one's species and 2 - the perpetuation of oneself. In this discussion, those two may be at odds.

If a human colony knew it had going to exist on an arboreal environment to survive, knew that they could successfully mate with Wookies to produce offspring who could instinctively survive in such an environment, and that stock humans would die in such an environment. A valid primary concern for the perpetuation of that colony is its survival. Mating with Wookies to produce your kin who could survive is a serious issue to consider and would probably outweigh any absurd specist or ethical issues. That is, the colony survives even if pureblood humans will not.

At the most basic level, that is what is most important in reproduction - survival through offspring. If the offspring are naturally stronger from an inter-species union then naturally it is acceptable as they will survive the laws of nature. If the offspring are naturally weaker from an inter-species union, then naturally it is unacceptable and that offspring would die by the laws of nature.

 

Ghengis,

You may be surprised to hear that reproduction has often not been uppermost in lovers' minds. Some, in fact have been unpleasantly surprised that this has resulted from their relationship. Believe it or not, people beyond the age of reproduction are still engaging in these acts, and even falling in love with new partners. ( a gross thought for you youngsters, I know ) To use the possibility of reproduction to gauge the morality of relationships is rather flawed.

 

Ghengis12, if the stock humans were able to mate successfully with Wookiees, then that means that it is not a question of cross-species but cross-racial breeding. There is nothing perverted or abominable of cross-racial breeding.

Concerning sexuality in general---sex is designed to enable a species to reproduce, and thereby perpetuate itself. If one is to engage in acts of a sexual nature without the intent or capacity for reproduction, then one is misapplying sex. A synonym of "to misapply" is "to pervert." Therefore, acts of a sexual nature not designed or capable to reproduce are misapplications---or perversions---of sexuality. That is the nature of the argument.

This is merely a discussion of cross-species sexuality, mind you, not cross-species relationships. That is a horse of a different colour, so to speak. There is nothing inherently perverted about that.

 

I guess by your logic, That the 90% of people on earth who are married, or non-married, same-sex,swing both ways, the hermaproditic, or the physically sterile, the little people(dwarfism), the big people(giantism), or the wheel chair bound, or the elderly, or the inter-racial, that enjoy the pleasure of being kissed, and having sex are all perverts, , rotflol. Welcome to earth, Planet of the "perverts", . We are all stuck here together.

Don't worry it's ok, to be erotophobic. Not anything wrong with that, .

"whether we label sexual acts as "perversion", "deviations", or part of an "alternative sexual life-style" depends on are attitudes towards behaviors." Psychology David G. Myers(416).

That's ok, your own point of view is up for you to decide yourself, and theres nothing wrong with choosing to believe that. Unless you start to Publicily condemn people for there own choices, and there personal beliefs.

nor is it right for others to push there moral and ethical beliefs on other people, to force or coerce people into following there way of life.

All any of us can do is have acceptance, and choose to follow are own paths, because there are going to be alot people out there that disagree, and will be offended by people speaking there minds.

 

"Erotophobic"?

That is conceivably one of the weirdest things ever seen on this board. Erotophobe, indeed!

Now there is inspiration!

 

The term Erotophobic, used for those against sex for pleasure, or afraid to express themselves sexually, came from the same source as that quote above, "Psychology David G. Myers", and is a commen psychological term.

It's mentioned on several pages, but heres a quote that came out of the same page as that quote from above, to clarify,

"sexual researchers label sexually restrained individuals as "erotophopic". pg. 416.

There is nothing wrong, to be one, and it's good to share ones feelings and beliefs, if they choose too.

 

III_Vir...
"Ghengis12, if the stock humans were able to mate successfully with Wookiees, then that means that it is not a question of cross-species but cross-racial breeding."

No, it is a question of cross-species, because Wookies are not a racial sub-group of humans, they are an entirely different race - an "alien" race. For my hypothetical situation, I gave as indisputable the fact that this different species, Wookies, are reproductively compatible with stock humans. Such a possiblity can easily exist in Star Wars (the GFFA) even if it may not be common on Earth. So, I believe you have misunderstood my example to mean racial interbreeding. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing inter-species breeding, which my example provided for.

 

I said...
"...they are an entirely different race - an "alien" race..."

Of course it should've went, "...they are an entirely different species - an 'alien' species."

 

Genghis12---Your scenario is perplexing. By making stock humans able to mate with Wookiees, you are effectively side-stepping the whole point of contention.

The centre of the argument is the inability to reproduce with members of another species, which therefore renders acts of a sexual nature with members of another species perversions of sexuality. If, through some utterly bizarre mechanism of fiction, a member of one species is able to mate with a member of another, then is is obviously not a perversion.

But then, if a member of one species is able to mate with a member of another, and produce fertile offspring, then it is far more likely that they are in fact members of the same species, being overly chauvinist and individualist races---for example, as Valiento has demonstrated, it is inaccurate to call the Chiss a species, when they are a glorified race of "modified" humans, if you'll pardon the imprecision of the expression.

 

Oh, chiss can be a seperate species from Homo sapiens(a next generation of evolution), but they are still under the Human family of different species.

"which therefore renders acts of a sexual nature with members of another species perversions of sexuality."

which as you know comes from your own personal values, and not same values,that not all others have in there own personal beliefs. Sexual researchers, also label those who have erotophobia as also having High sexual guilt(guilt of things of pleasure as being something wrong). When they say "sex is a life-uniting, and love renewing experiance(Pychology, (pg417)), having nothing to do with what's right or wrong, that would be someones personal oppinion, and Oppinions are not always the "right" way. Most of the world see sex as something beutiful, and fullfilling, bringing a closer bond to a relationship, and keeping it fresh. Research has shown lack of a normal sex-life in a married couple, has led to schisms, affairs, and high devorce rates.(while they go into some problems that occur do to sex before marriage, they discuss, that as long as they are adults and mutually consenting, that what the couple believes is right or wrong is more valid than what others think.) So what might be your choice on what you will do, and think is right, doesn't always mean your belief is right for anyone else. In the star wars universe, if 2 people of any species, who are both consenting adults(who can discuss on the same level of sentience), choose to improve there relationship with a healthy sex life, that is there choice, and they are not in any wrong from there own ethics and views. For them to be insulted, attacked, persecuted for it would be wrong. Beliefs are something one follows, not something someone hits over the head of another, if they do not choose to believe the same thing.