The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TenEightyOne]

In fact in my original comment about my opinion does god exist, I replied "no" and described we might be actually in Hell already describing some plausible examples including word LGBT. I don't know if I'd get away from comment more easier if I'd replaced LGBT with word transgender.

LGBT and Transgender aren't exclusively the same thing. Does their existence mean we're "in hell already"?

 

[Imari]

Placed in the correct thread.

For example, if ugly person gets him/herself modified to look more better he/she still carries genes of original ugly him/herself. Offspings will get portion of these ugly genes, not modified look ones. If you have Vauxhall Vectra and put chassis of Ferrari F40 on it, it's still Vauxhall.

Ah, a eugenicist.

At the risk of asking a silly question, are you aware of the history of eugenics and why it really isn't particularly popular any more?

In modern world you can get pretty much everything with money. Is it necessary or not? Legimate sure if somebody pays to somebody who has skills and tools to do the job. Defective? I would use word vain.

I think you're drawing arbitrary lines between what's defective and what isn't.

The woman having the breast reduction is altering herself from her "natural" state, but somehow that's OK because it makes her suffer. So it's clearly not entirely about what's "natural" and what isn't. Otherwise you'd think that people with conditions that cause pain are naturally born that way, and that should be maintained so that they can have appropriate chances in the genetic lottery.

I think you may still have some contradictions in your philosophy here. Let's see if we can't simplify a little.

You're attempting to make sure that "good" genes propagate, yes?
Altering physical properties that cause pain is apparently OK.
Returning damaged cosmetic appearance is OK, as long as it's only to the extent of the original appearance.
Modifying cosmetic appearance to anything other than the "natural" state is not OK.

Are you just trying to select for physical beauty here? I feel like if someone is intelligent and wants to use the wealth they've accumulated by being so to make themselves more physically attractive, that's just that person's genes giving them a boost by another method.

In times past, ugly but wealthy people might have gotten sexual partners by offering them food or shelter. In modern times those things are more abundant but we have cosmetic surgery. Same result, different path to get there. Why should people who are genetically gifted with skills that produce wealth not be allowed to use those skills to enhance their opportunities for procreation in any way they see fit?

Basically yes.

Lol. So when you see a drawing of a fictional person and you're attracted to it, what sexuality is that? After all, a fictional person has no gender.

The part of your brain that's attracted sexually isn't aware of whether a person is male or female, it simply sees something that it likes. If you're a heterosexual man, that's likely to be traditionally feminine characteristics. If those happen to be attached to a male, that doesn't make you a homosexual. It makes you a normal heterosexual male that is attracted to exactly the sort of things that heterosexual males are supposed to be attracted to.

If you smell a delicious frying bacon smell that turns out to be human flesh, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly a attracted to eating human flesh. You smelled something that smelled good to you; it just happened to come from a source that is not attractive to you on the whole. The human brain can and does respond to limited information, sometimes incorrectly.

There's nothing wrong with that, and that you think that simply being attracted to a trans girl makes you homosexual betrays just how much of this is based on your own emotional insecurity rather than any objective reasoning.



Seems like a pretty normal looking girl to me. Bit young for my tastes, but given that she's a model other people think she's pretty and I wouldn't disagree. If I were her age, I'd certainly buy her a beer. I certainly wouldn't need two.

Hunter Schafer, if you're curious.

I keep my rights to my own opinions. You may not like them, but please allow me to have them.

You may have them, and I reserve the right to tell you my opinion on them if they're abusive. Deal?

 

[Tappajakoala]

Deal

I will comment this later since I have some tasks to do first. Stay tuned!

Edit: back in action.

Placed in the correct thread.
Ah, a eugenicist.

At the risk of asking a silly question, are you aware of the history of eugenics and why it really isn't particularly popular any more?

Are you for real? If flat breast woman gets breast implants and she goes to have baby, does her daughter get eventually large breast because her mother had breast implant? Sure she might get it from genes from grand parents and father side carried over, but no...her mother's side of genes about breast size are the flat ones. That's not eugenics, that's called biology.

I think you're drawing arbitrary lines between what's defective and what isn't.

The woman having the breast reduction is altering herself from her "natural" state, but somehow that's OK because it makes her suffer. So it's clearly not entirely about what's "natural" and what isn't. Otherwise you'd think that people with conditions that cause pain are naturally born that way, and that should be maintained so that they can have appropriate chances in the genetic lottery.

In my opinion healthcare and medical science has goal to make people feel less pain and more healthy. Am I wrong?

I think you may still have some contradictions in your philosophy here. Let's see if we can't simplify a little.

You're attempting to make sure that "good" genes propagate, yes?

I have not made claims like that. I made point that modifications like breast implants nor facial surgeries doesn't carry over to offsprings since they are not in their original genetic code of DNA.

Altering physical properties that cause pain is apparently OK.

Yes, art of surgery can remove hernia, tumor in some occasion cancer particles. And even oversized breasts if they are causing patient untolerable pain. In these cases there's valid reasons to improve quality of life for patient.

Returning damaged cosmetic appearance is OK, as long as it's only to the extent of the original appearance.

In most of those cases, fixing facial injury fixes also bones, occlusion, severe skin damage and "aircondition" of nose. Every case is bit different, but I doubt no-one could be actually against of these kind of operations. Or shall the victim of injury be left suffering with his/her pains?

Modifying cosmetic appearance to anything other than the "natural" state is not OK.

My opinion they are unnecassary and sign of vanity. I'm still not going to say we shall deny people doing them. Some may want to attach rubber boot on their forehead by cosmetic surgery, some may want bigger breasts. They pay, I have nothing against it.
I like people as natural.

Are you just trying to select for physical beauty here? I feel like if someone is intelligent and wants to use the wealth they've accumulated by being so to make themselves more physically attractive, that's just that person's genes giving them a boost by another method.

Look I am not selecting any physical beauty models here. Please stop putting false claims on my comments. For god sake... (Oops, sorry. Never mind that, I'm still an atheist )

Stephen Hawkings was worried about future people. Especially wealthy ones can go alter their genes by money and ensuring their offsrping will get best possible abilities from genes.
That's modern eugenics.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...own-dna/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96f72a337d6d

In times past, ugly but wealthy people might have gotten sexual partners by offering them food or shelter. In modern times those things are more abundant but we have cosmetic surgery. Same result, different path to get there. Why should people who are genetically gifted with skills that produce wealth not be allowed to use those skills to enhance their opportunities for procreation in any way they see fit?

Please read link above, Stephen Hawking was extremely wise man. We really should listen him.

Lol. So when you see a drawing of a fictional person and you're attracted to it, what sexuality is that? After all, a fictional person has no gender.

I have no fetish of any kind towards fictional persons.

The part of your brain that's attracted sexually isn't aware of whether a person is male or female, it simply sees something that it likes. If you're a heterosexual man, that's likely to be traditionally feminine characteristics. If those happen to be attached to a male, that doesn't make you a homosexual. It makes you a normal heterosexual male that is attracted to exactly the sort of things that heterosexual males are supposed to be attracted to.

Well, there's at least something we both agree with.

If you smell a delicious frying bacon smell that turns out to be human flesh, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly a attracted to eating human flesh. You smelled something that smelled good to you; it just happened to come from a source that is not attractive to you on the whole. The human brain can and does respond to limited information, sometimes incorrectly.

Yum...human liver, fava beans and and a nice Chianti!

There's nothing wrong with that, and that you think that simply being attracted to a trans girl makes you homosexual betrays just how much of this is based on your own emotional insecurity rather than any objective reasoning.

Seems like a pretty normal looking girl to me. Bit young for my tastes, but given that she's a model other people think she's pretty and I wouldn't disagree. If I were her age, I'd certainly buy her a beer. I certainly wouldn't need two.

Hunter Schafer, if you're curious.

Ok, that's fine. I'm not into that stuff but If I would hit a girl which would turn out to be male or transgender and I would not notice that myself, I surely would hope she/he would tell me that before going any further. Both can back off politely from situation without being humilated any way.

You may have them, and I reserve the right to tell you my opinion on them if they're abusive. Deal?

Fair deal!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

[Danoff]

Please don't compare pedophilia and homosexuality. Seriously, it's gross and archaic to even discuss both as if they are on the same level. We have volumes of evidence validating that homosexuality can be genetically driven where as pedophilia is typically driven by trauma and/or overt exposure to sexuality at a young developmental age.

Pedophilia must be treated and homosexuality needs to be left alone. Period.

Maaaaaybe that's fair? But if so, pedophilia is more like preferring big boobs or long legs. I don't know how you treat someone out of the condition. Pedophilia is really defined according to cultural norms, and it used to be far more pervasively accepted and practiced. It's not archaic to discuss sexual preferences along with a discussion of other sexual preferences.

Ok, let me try to explain a little differently. Suppose someone likes the idea of rape, it turns them on. They go their whole life watching porn that simulates rape, and they play out rape scenarios with their partner (who also enjoys it). And let's suppose, for a moment, that this person never rapes anyone. It's just their sexual preference, based on their own genetic wiring and environment during upbringing.

Do they need to be treated? Rape is a crime, a sexual preference for rape is a sexual preference for a crime. Are they sick?

The moment they rape someone though... all bets are off.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Maaaaaybe that's fair? But if so, pedophilia is more like preferring big boobs or long legs. I don't know how you treat someone out of the condition. Pedophilia is really defined according to cultural norms, and it used to be far more pervasively accepted and practiced. It's not archaic to discuss sexual preferences along with a discussion of other sexual preferences.

Ok, let me try to explain a little differently. Suppose someone likes the idea of rape, it turns them on. They go their whole life watching porn that simulates rape, and they play out rape scenarios with their partner (who also enjoys it). And let's suppose, for a moment, that this person never rapes anyone. It's just their sexual preference, based on their own genetic wiring and environment during upbringing.

Do they need to be treated? Rape is a crime, a sexual preference for rape is a sexual preference for a crime. Are they sick?

The moment they rape someone though... all bets are off.

Sexual idealization is an important aspect of actual sexuality. We curate and develop aesthetic preferences before we act them out. Being ashamed of illegal idealization is good for society as the deviant is then aware of a clear divide between thought and action, even though they are fixating on an unattainable idealization that will wreak havoc on their real world sexuality. They should probably get help for this behavior once it begins effecting their personal intimacy with their partners.

I'm sure there's a handful of people who are aesthetically drawn to homosexuality, but the majority are genetically driven. For these people, their fixations are driven without copious amounts of content to drum up their idealization.

The normalization of illegal deviance is the worst thing that could happen to our society and you are taking part in that process with this nonsense. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not motivated by the same factors and to say such a thing shows a massive ignorance on the topic. The fact that it's lock step with the current NAMBLA PR narrative is pretty telling.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Being ashamed of illegal idealization is good for society

Yep, sounds like thought policing.

The thing about idealization is that it's only in the mind, and there's nothing illegal about thinking. If there was, we'd lock up every person who once thought — or worse, even uttered — that they'd shoot their boss due to work stress.

 

[Danoff]

Sexual idealization is an important aspect of actual sexuality. We curate and develop aesthetic preferences before we act them out. Being ashamed of illegal idealization is good for society as the deviant is then aware of a clear divide between thought and action, even though they are fixating on an unattainable idealization that will wreak havoc on their real world sexuality.

Why does it need to wreak havoc on their real world sexuality? There are fully grown adult people that ultimately develop... I'll put this delicately... a more child-like appearance than others. It's absolutely possible to find a partner who is capable of consenting but who looks like someone who is under age. In fact, it's helpful that there are people in society that find those people attractive and would want to pair bond with them.

BTW, if we made homosexuality illegal would it be right and just for society to be ashamed of that illegal deviant behavior? Don't hide behind the law. The law does make sense for distinguishing between pedophilia and rape as compared to homosexuality, but it's not because it's illegal.

They should probably get help for this behavior once it begins effecting their personal intimacy with their partners.

Nothing says it has to.

I'm sure there's a handful of people who are aesthetically drawn to homosexuality, but the majority are genetically driven.

I think sexuality is a little more fluid than you're giving credit. I think there is a genetic component to all of it, and a social and environmental component to all of it. I think people can have a genetic predisposition to preferring big boobs, or smaller boobs, for example. And I have some anecdotal evidence to support that, but I haven't gone hunting for sexuality studies that confirm this. It's a common element of most men to prefer a youthful appearance. And that preference doesn't stop at age 18, just because that's where we think the brain is ready to consent today. There's nothing in the male brain that shuts off attraction below age 18. To an extent, I'd argue that the majority of men are pedophiles... easily found attracted to example 15 and 16 year olds. Obviously the number goes much lower than that, and society used to be more accepting of that. We stopped, for good reason, but that doesn't change the biological imperative to pair bond and procreate early.

For these people, their fixations are driven without copious amounts of content to drum up their idealization.

Every type of sexual preference is susceptible to copious amounts of content to drum up idealization.

The normalization of illegal deviance is the worst thing that could happen to our society and you are taking part in that process with this nonsense.

Rape fantasies are actually normal, and wider spread than you might think. The fact that you're so eager to label it as sick and destructive actually strikes me as ignorance on your part. The notion that you must act on that which you're sexually attracted to is also seriously misguided on your part. I think it's actually a really important part of sexual maturity - especially these days where access to pornography is so ubiquitous.

I actually remember the moment, and I consider it to be an important part in my emotional maturity, where I realized that I could enjoy watching something in pornography, and not actually want to participate in it myself. What a revelation, I know. It's like enjoying watching action movies or games without wanting to shoot everybody. Somehow it took me longer to realize that that was true of porn and arousal.

Edit:

And just to make sure this is clear, I'm referring to, in the case of pedophiles, CGI or drawn depictions of acts which would otherwise necessarily harm individuals. Not all porn is real-life and would involve actually harming someone.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Yep, sounds like thought policing.

The thing about idealization is that it's only in the mind, and there's nothing illegal about thinking. If there was, we'd lock up every person who once thought — or worse, even uttered — that they'd shoot their boss due to work stress.

Woah woah, pump the brakes. I never said anything about banning or policing. Don't infer anything like that from what I wrote as I clearly didn't say anything like that. Please reverse your statement and try again.

I actually remember the moment, and I consider it to be an important part in my emotional maturity, where I realized that I could enjoy watching something in pornography, and not actually want to participate in it myself. What a revelation, I know. It's like enjoying watching action movies or games without wanting to shoot everybody. Somehow it took me longer to realize that that was true of porn and arousal.

See, I knew it. You're not arguing rationally here. You're working from a position of self defense. Idealizing activity that's illegal opens the door to pushing that interest further. Most people will not go through that door, which is why thoughts and idealization should never be a crime. But pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime. A criminal doesn't just jump to rape. They fantasize and entertain the idea for some time before committing it.

That's all I'm saying.

These people should be ashamed of their thoughts and keep them in their heads if they want to function in day to day society. If I had an adult relative who was open about being a non-acting pedophile then I clearly would be keeping my kids the hell away from that nut job forever. The same goes for rape. They key issue here as to why they're not acceptable as alternate aesthetic interests is because the idealization revolves around affecting another powerless human being. These are pathetic fantasies for powerless people who have a need to feel more than they actually are. Pandering to those thoughts doesn't help any process of self improvement. It's merely sulking one one's deficiencies and stubbornly holding onto them rather than being an adult and moving on.

 

[Danoff]

See, I knew it. You're not arguing rationally here. You're working from a position of self defense.

Those are two separate accusations, and you've supported neither. First, you need to explain what I said that was irrational. Next, separately, you need to explain why you think I'm working from a position of self defense. I merely explained that part of maturity is learning that you don't have to participate in the things you expose yourself to. If you watch Dexter (a popular HBO television show from a few years back), you don't then need to become a serial killer. If you watch Breaking Bad, you don't have to make a distribute meth. If you enjoy listening to symphony, you don't have to learn how to play an instrument. You can enjoy watching vampire sex without wanting to drink blood.

Idealizing activity that's illegal opens the door to pushing that interest further. Most people will not go through that door, which is why thoughts and idealization should never be a crime. But pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime. A criminal doesn't just jump to rape. They fantasize and entertain the idea for some time before committing it.

That's all I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. And it's wrong. First, it's not always the first step before committing a crime. Second, stopping someone from fantasizing about a crime will not stop them from committing it. Just apply your line of reasoning to violent video games and read it back.

These people should be ashamed of their thoughts and keep them in their heads if they want to function in day to day society.

Pride and shame are things you can feel about that which you have personal control over. People should not feel ashamed about thoughts that they do not control. They might need help, but shame is inappropriate for something you did not create.

If I had an adult relative who was open about being a non-acting pedophile then I clearly would be keeping my kids the hell away from that nut job forever. The same goes for rape.

I might keep a dessert out of sight for someone who told me they were on a diet. But I'm not calling them a nut job. If someone told you that they are a non-acting pedophile, they're probably the last person you should be concerned about. You'd have to be outlandishly self-actualized and unbelievably confident to make that kind of statement in today's society. You're practically painting a target on your back with a comment like that - that would be brazen self confidence.

They key issue here as to why they're not acceptable as alternate aesthetic interests is because the idealization revolves around affecting another powerless human being. These are pathetic fantasies for powerless people who have a need to feel more than they actually are. Pandering to those thoughts doesn't help any process of self improvement. It's merely sulking one one's deficiencies and stubbornly holding onto them rather than being an adult and moving on.

You're acting like "being an adult" means not accepting yourself. It's rather the opposite. It's not a deficiency to be sexually aroused by something, and becoming aroused is not pandering. Honestly, you sound like someone discussing homosexuality 40 years ago. Or sexuality 100 years ago.

Instead of trying to create an unhealthy, and impossible to maintain, internal barrier in someone's heads around thoughts that they have no control over, and telling them that they're sick and disturbed for having those thoughts (which they have no control over), and insinuating that they're responsible and horrible for having those thoughts, you should be focused on helping create a healthy distinction between thought and action. A healthy distinction between fantasy and reality. A broader understanding that one is not responsible for their thoughts, but is responsible for their actions. That'd be in line with better mental health, and it'd be in line with the real world.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You're acting like "being an adult" means not accepting yourself. It's rather the opposite.

Being an adult is about defining yourself. Setting goals and racing towards them both in terms of personal and professional development. Animals just exist. Animals just accept what they have to work with and lie down to let the world interact with them. Adults put action into motion towards intention.

If your personal preferences puts you at odds with the legality of a society and are also morally irreprehensible then it's probably best to stifle those ideas rather than to mentally indulge in things you can't have. Dreaming about the unattainable is a fantasy. Fantasies are for children, not adults.

 

[Famine]

If your personal preferences puts you at odds with the legality of a society and are also morally irreprehensible then it's probably best to stifle those ideas

Honestly, you sound like someone discussing homosexuality 40 years ago.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Woah woah, pump the brakes. I never said anything about banning or policing. Don't infer anything like that from what I wrote as I clearly didn't say anything like that. Please reverse your statement and try again.

You've talked about "treating" people — whatever that might entail — and have argued that certain thoughts shouldn't be thought. That's... pretty much thought policing, in different words.

You've even compared someone's response to you to NAMBLA. You don't get to play the "you're being irrational" card.

But pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime. A criminal doesn't just jump to rape. They fantasize and entertain the idea for some time before committing it.

That's all I'm saying.

Always, eh?

What you're saying is that you've crafted a story to suit your argument.

These people should be ashamed of their thoughts and keep them in their heads if they want to function in day to day society. If I had an adult relative who was open about being a non-acting pedophile then I clearly would be keeping my kids the hell away from that nut job forever. The same goes for rape. They key issue here as to why they're not acceptable as alternate aesthetic interests is because the idealization revolves around affecting another powerless human being. These are pathetic fantasies for powerless people who have a need to feel more than they actually are. Pandering to those thoughts doesn't help any process of self improvement. It's merely sulking one one's deficiencies and stubbornly holding onto them rather than being an adult and moving on.

Going back to @Danoff's example: in what way would the person who prefers to act out rape fantasies in the privacy of their own home — with their consenting partner — be unable to function in day to day society due to said preference?

(It should also be emphasized that he rather cleverly did not attach a specific sex or even aggressor/sub to his example — so that's the argument about wanting to be the one in power out the window.)

This train of thought is barely indistinguishable from the "if you're not religious, how do you stop yourself from raping and murdering all the time?" one.

 

[Famine]

Going back to @Danoff's example: in what way would the person who prefers to act out rape fantasies in the privacy of their own home — with their consenting partner — be unable to function in day to day society due to said preference?

I asked my wife if she wanted to help me act out my rape fantasies. She said "no", which really set the stage...

 

[polysmut]

I asked my wife if she wanted to help me act out my rape fantasies. She said "no", which really set the stage...

Looks like it's time for the "The Things People On GTPlanet Said This Year..." thread.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Going back to @Danoff's example: in what way would the person who prefers to act out rape fantasies in the privacy of their own home — with their consenting partner — be unable to function in day to day society due to said preference?

There's nothing illegal about a fantasy act between two consenting adults. That little consent part literally makes it not rape. Your example here is not relevant.

And all of your counter points are irrelevant as well as I've made it clear that I do not support thought laws, so you're arguing a straw man perspective that I never upheld.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

There's nothing illegal about a fantasy act between two consenting adults. That little consent part literally makes it not rape. Your example here is not relevant.

That's certainly a change in tone from your response to the exact same example just up this page:

The normalization of illegal deviance is the worst thing that could happen to our society and you are taking part in that process with this nonsense. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not motivated by the same factors and to say such a thing shows a massive ignorance on the topic. The fact that it's lock step with the current NAMBLA PR narrative is pretty telling.

And all of your counter points are irrelevant as well as I've made it clear that I do not support thought laws, so you're arguing a straw man perspective that I never upheld.

So you don't have anything to back up the claim that "pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime"? Gotcha.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

So you don't have anything to back up the claim that "pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime"? Gotcha.

Do you want to try and support the claim that pedophilia crimes spontaneously occur without forethought? I can't imagine you'd try.

Child molestation is typically a long ball strategy requiring methodic idealization, sizing up, and grooming before engaging in the act. The first step of this process should not be criminalized but people are approaching a dangerous direction when they entertain fantasies about exploiting weak people for sexual gratification.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Do you want to try and support the claim that pedophilia crimes spontaneously occur without forethought? I can't imagine you'd try.

I'm not the one making the claim. You also never specified pedophilia up until this post. Here, I'll post it again:

Idealizing activity that's illegal opens the door to pushing that interest further. Most people will not go through that door, which is why thoughts and idealization should never be a crime. But pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies is always the first step before committing the crime. A criminal doesn't just jump to rape. They fantasize and entertain the idea for some time before committing it.

Do you want to stick with that, or do you want a hand moving the goalposts?

Child molestation is typically a long ball strategy requiring methodic idealization, sizing up, and grooming before engaging in the act. The first step of this process should not be criminalized but people are approaching a dangerous direction when they entertain fantasies about exploiting weak people for sexual gratification.

I won't argue that first sentence.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Do you want to stick with that, or do you want a hand moving the goalposts?

Really? You pedantically parse and split my statements into disconnected non contextual sentences and then try to hammer me for it? You're being disingenuous in this discussion. My statements aren't difficult to grasp here and I don't mind trying to clarify my position but don't then throw my previous broader statement at me while asking for a clarification. I thought we were trying to get more granular here in knowing my intent. You have no concern for the intent of my words though. You're playing a typical internet game and I don't have time for that.

 

[Danoff]

There's nothing illegal about a fantasy act between two consenting adults. That little consent part literally makes it not rape. Your example here is not relevant.

There's also nothing wrong with a little fantasy act between two consenting adults where one of them dresses like a high schooler right?

How about watching some Japenese cartoon depiction of rape? How about if that depiction includes someone who looks young? None of those things are illegal... hence my example is relevant. And also I'll note you're trying to hide behind the law again.

Do you want to try and support the claim that pedophilia crimes spontaneously occur without forethought? I can't imagine you'd try.

I'd imagine most rape doesn't spontaneously occur without forethought either, so you're doing a horrible job of distinguishing.

BTW, I intentionally chose rape because of how mainstream certain rape fantasies are. For example, 50 shades of grey, which you might think of as bondage, depicts a very... rapey... role play. Some adults get off on being dominated. Yet this is a role play of an illegal act. Is it wrong to also role play with someone dressing as though they were 15 or 16? Is that cultivating an eventual crime?

What you'd need to show, to support your position, is that there is an intensifying effect involved with exposing yourself to certain kinds of media or role play that results in crimes committed. Whether it be (adult) rape, child molestation, murder (such as in the case of violent movies or games), and of course, planking, which should have been a crime really because of how stupid it was. And then, after showing that, you'd have to demonstrate that removal of that media would result in a reduction of the crimes, and that doing so is morally justifiable and consistent with free speech.

It's a tall order.

Edit:

I had to include these quotes because they're stronger points than they might seem at first glance.

and the overwhelming domination of absolutely hairless models

Made completely mainstream by the movie American Pie. Also this is a browsing category in certain porn sites... I've been told.

Australia literally banned all sexualised depictions of women with smaller than B-cup breasts on this basis. Yes, in Australia if you're a 35-year old woman with small breasts, the government doesn't think you can be sexy...

Also a common search, and the list goes on. I don't really want to drag us through it, so I won't, but the list of on-the-edge but popular and ubiquitous categories of pornography abound.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

What you'd need to show, to support your position, is that there is an intensifying effect involved with exposing yourself to certain kinds of media or role play that results in crimes committed. Whether it be (adult) rape, child molestation, murder (such as in the case of violent movies or games), and of course, planking, which should have been a crime really because of how stupid it was. And then, after showing that, you'd have to demonstrate that removal of that media would result in a reduction of the crimes, and that doing so is morally justifiable and consistent with free speech.

It's a tall order.

Maybe for a thesis paper on the topic but not for this discussion. I am not pushing for the criminalization of idealizing any crimes so I don't know why I would be having to gather evidence of a correlation towards crime in order to make my case.

My point is simple, entertaining idealizations that are unattainable are a waste of time. A person's increased interest in these ideas also pushes them at odds with other people in their social groups, hence becoming antisocial behavior. This isn't theory, it's logistic common sense. Lets say given your certain social status there are 10 women that would make for viable relationship candidates. Of that 10, how many would be fine with rape themed role-play? See, by pandering to anti-social fantasies you are whittling down your potential sexual partners and finding yourself with less options.

As for leading to actual crimes, all serial rapists fantasize about rape. It's their thing. If idealization didn't take place, it couldn't become their thing. It's just a logistic truth of the matter. Thought before action and all of that. So though I would never criminalizing these sorts of idealizations I still won't hesitate to declare them anti-social unhealthy wastes of time, while being validated in that position. Don't try to normalize my devalue of degenerate behavior just so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[Danoff]

My point is simple, entertaining idealizations that are unattainable are a waste of time. A person's increased interest in these ideas also pushes them at odds with other people in their social groups, hence becoming antisocial behavior. This isn't theory, it's logistic common sense. Lets say given your certain social status there are 10 women that would make for viable relationship candidates. Of that 10, how many would be fine with rape themed role-play? See, by pandering to anti-social fantasies you are whittling down your potential sexual partners and finding yourself with less options.

This is true of any sexual preference. Including a preference for either gender. This line of reasoning is so fun that I have to dig in a little bet. Let's say given your social status (I assume you mean single rather than rich), there are indeed 10 women that would make for viable relationship candidates. Let's say that one of them is 50 lbs over your personal preference. 3 of them have faces that you don't like the appearance of. 2 of them are older than you'd like. 2 of them are younger than you'd like. And 2 of them are into kinky bondage role playing, which you're not into.

Your personal preferences have narrowed the list down to nothing! How anti-social. If only you'd been into some freaky bondage action!

As for leading to actual crimes, all serial rapists fantasize about rape. It's their thing. If idealization didn't take place, it couldn't become their thing. It's just a logistic truth of the matter. Thought before action and all of that. So though I would never criminalizing these sorts of idealizations I still won't hesitate to declare them anti-social unhealthy wastes of time, while being validated in that position.

You mean like playing a violent video game? Or are we just talking about porn. I could argue that all porn is a waste of time. Also all movies and TV.

Don't try to normalize my devalue of degenerate behavior just so you can feel better about yourself.

The personal attack fallacy really doesn't bolster your argument, or have any place in a discussion.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Really? You pedantically parse and split my statements into disconnected non contextual sentences and then try to hammer me for it? You're being disingenuous in this discussion. My statements aren't difficult to grasp here and I don't mind trying to clarify my position but don't then throw my previous broader statement at me while asking for a clarification. I thought we were trying to get more granular here in knowing my intent. You have no concern for the intent of my words though. You're playing a typical internet game and I don't have time for that.

Your statements are difficult to grasp precisely because you keep changing your stance. First it was all criminal acts were pre-empted by pandering to illegal and dangerous fantasies. Then it was just pedophilia. Now it includes (serial) rapists — undoubtedly common sure, but that part in brackets is key. You called the example of two consenting adults taking part in rape fantasies an act of normalizing illegal deviance and nonsense — you even threw in a NAMBLA comparison. Then it was fine because of consent (which was always part of the equation).

Then there's this, which isn't clearly attributed to any sort of "deviant thoughts", but is still what most would refer to as "painting with a wide brush":

These are pathetic fantasies for powerless people who have a need to feel more than they actually are. Pandering to those thoughts doesn't help any process of self improvement. It's merely sulking one one's deficiencies and stubbornly holding onto them rather than being an adult and moving on.

On the contrary, with statements like that and the NAMBLA one, I think your intent is clear as day.

My point is simple, entertaining idealizations that are unattainable are a waste of time.

Plenty of things are wastes of time — that doesn't make them bad. We're both people that play video games, are we not?

A person's increased interest in these ideas also pushes them at odds with other people in their social groups, hence becoming antisocial behavior. This isn't theory, it's logistic common sense. Lets say given your certain social status there are 10 women that would make for viable relationship candidates. Of that 10, how many would be fine with rape themed role-play? See, by pandering to anti-social fantasies you are whittling down your potential sexual partners and finding yourself with less options.

I don't think whittling down sexual partners is inherently bad either. Being honest about one's sexual preferences is an important step in cultivating a healthy relationship with your partner.

I knew a guy in college who was very open about his sexuality. He talked about the entire gay scene and the seemingly endless permutations of sexual preferences. Bears, BDSM... I honestly can't even remember all the details, because it's not my scene. But I did find it interesting that the community can be so open about its desires, as it helps like-minded folks meet each other. In comparison, judging by the stories I hear from the handful of friends that still brave the likes of Tinder, that level of openness just isn't a thing on the heterosexual side of the equation. I mean, it's not exactly first-date discussion material, even I'll admit — but I appreciate the level of openness that college friend described.

And looking past sexual preferences, literally any preferences you have for partners limit your choices.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He wasn't openly gay or bi - he might well have been gay and had no interest in women, but he absolutely was not open about that, and a fair amount of intriguing by Scottish nobles went into seperating him from his lover.

And a fair number of contemporary diarists/writers suggest that their relationship was quite open, and the intrigues were as much about Papism as anything else.

By my second point I kind of meant it would be rather odd for someone to do something so ultra progressive as to be an openly homosexual man in the 16th century

It's interesting that you call it "ultra-progressive", perhaps that erroneous standpoint is colouring the rest of your argument. Homosexuality wasn't frowned upon by everybody (by any means) in Tudor or Jacobean society. Having, and knowing that people were having, same-sex relationships was not "ultra-progressive".

at the same time as doing something so backward as writing books about imaginary demonology and burning women alive for sending storms to sink his ships.

That seems an astonishing piece of prejudice. Perhaps you could explain how gay men all act?

Not, obviously, that there is any relationship between those two things

Why mention it then?

but it'd be pretty amusing if both were true.

Hilarious. Gay man can be as insanely prejudicial as a "normal". Ha. Ha ha.

King James I was gay just stinks to high heaven of revisionism to me.

When the evidence of his relationships is in contemporary writings of people in his court, no. When evidence of Jacobean attitudes to homosexuality are presented in contemporary writings, no. When homophobes hate the idea that perhaps their views come out of the Victorian puritanical Anglican doctrine, yes.

I highly highly doubt an openly gay Scottish King could have ruled England for over 20 years, gunpowder plot notwithstanding.

So I see. Yet he did. He ruled for the length of time you say and he was openly in a relationship with Villiers, a friend who he would "tumble and kiss like a maid" in front of his court.

It would have been a whole lot easier to remove the unpopular James had he been a sodomite.

I'm glad you saved that bit until last, as the actor said to the bishop. Attitudes to sodomy were different, but sodomy was not confused with homosexuality. They were not, and are not, the same thing. Perhaps you think they are?

 

[MaxAttack]

And a fair number of contemporary diarists/writers suggest that their relationship was quite open, and the intrigues were as much about Papism as anything else.

Whatever sparked the intrigues, they happened, and it was deemed necessary to hide/play down his homosexuality to the point of having him marry a woman, something he'd shown little intention of doing in his youth. Whatever the reasons were - British or Roman in origin, they were reasons that were acted on, so clearly having an openly gay king was seen as something that couldn't be allowed to happen.

It's interesting that you call it "ultra-progressive", perhaps that erroneous standpoint is colouring the rest of your argument. Homosexuality wasn't frowned upon by everybody (by any means) in Tudor or Jacobean society. Having, and knowing that people were having, same-sex relationships was not "ultra-progressive".

Perhaps not in common society, but we are talking about a monarch. Considering it's the late 16th century, and buggery is a crime, being openly gay as a monarch, particularly to the church and clergy who, you know, had some pretty serious clout in politics, would certainly have been a very, very brave and progressive thing to do. If King James had openly said "I am a homosexual/bisexual man" the social ramifications would have been massive, though I doubt very positive.

No, homosexuality was not some invisible thing no-one knew about or discussed, but a homosexual monarch would have been far, far beyond the norm.

That seems an astonishing piece of prejudice. Perhaps you could explain how gay men all act?

that doesn't really feel like an actual reply to what i'm saying. If you're inferring some blanket statement about gay people being more compassionate or progressive by default then uh.... Not sure what you're talking about. As I said, I merely find it an entertaining concept that someone who clearly picked and chose which parts of the scripture to adhere to (the Catholic church was quite clear on where it stood on "Buggery" at this time) would be so superstitious as to burn women as witches. It's not a comment pertaining that "he was gay so he should neger have thought that", i'm just saying its an interesting sort of cognitive dissonance considering the church condemned hus behaviours as much as the witches - and he was actually DOING those behaviours, whereas witchcraft flat out isn't even real.

Why mention it then?

Because it's an amusing little anecdote. Not everything I write is meant as an Earth-shattering revelation, and I hardly balanced my argument on this point alone.

Hilarious. Gay man can be as insanely prejudicial as a "normal". Ha. Ha ha.

You're right! I made one statement about one thing a gay dude did once, so I MUST be making a sweeping generalisation about the character of ALL gay men, right? And I must be coming from the angle of seeing homosexuals as "other" to myself!

Don't put words in my mouth.

When the evidence of his relationships is in contemporary writings of people in his court, no. When evidence of Jacobean attitudes to homosexuality are presented in contemporary writings, no. When homophobes hate the idea that perhaps their views come out of the Victorian puritanical Anglican doctrine, yes.

I concede that these writings exist, but posit that they were almost certainly not public knowledge in the King's lifetime, and what he did in front of his court is different to what he would do in public, I'm sure. And certainly different in a church.

So I see. Yet he did. He ruled for the length of time you say and he was openly in a relationship with Villiers, a friend who he would "tumble and kiss like a maid" in front of his court.

Same as above really. I'd like to remind you that I'm not trying to argue that he never had a relationship with a man, or that nobody ever knew about it. I just think "openly" gay isn't quite accurate for a man who married a woman. His court may well have known, and he might well have been open with them - from what I've read, James was admired and trusted by his retainers for his sharp wit and not-being-crazy-old-elizabeth - but I see no evidence that his sexuality was publicly proclaimed, and I cannot bring myself to believe it was not kept secret from religious figures. Buggery - a form of sodomy, according to the Catholic church - was a hangable offense, the law in England being introduced by Henry VIII. What I have read claims this sentence was rarely carried out, but it WAS the law, and thus it would have been absolutely unacceptable to have it known widely that the King of England was in any way homosexually inclined.

I'm glad you saved that bit until last, as the actor said to the bishop. Attitudes to sodomy were different, but sodomy was not confused with homosexuality. They were not, and are not, the same thing. Perhaps you think they are?

I was not sure that the correct historical term - buggery - is appropriate language for this forum, but either way, buggery was considered a form of sodomy by the church. Homosexual wasn't even a word at this point.

To conclude, I think you've missed the point I'm making, and you also seem to have taken several stabs at making me out as some generalising homophobe... That is rather far off the mark, so please don't do it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whatever sparked the intrigues, they happened, and it was deemed necessary to hide/play down his homosexuality to the point of having him marry a woman, something he'd shown little intention of doing in his youth. Whatever the reasons were - British or Roman in origin, they were reasons that were acted on, so clearly having an openly gay king was seen as something that couldn't be allowed to happen.

As you'll be aware there were many figures of the aristocracy invested in the success of any given monarch at any given time - the reason that James had to marry and put his winkle into a fertile lady was to make little Jameses and thereby continue the line.

Perhaps not in common society, but we are talking about a monarch. Considering it's the late 16th century, and buggery is a crime, being openly gay as a monarch, particularly to the church and clergy who, you know, had some pretty serious clout in politics, would certainly have been a very, very brave and progressive thing to do. If King James had openly said "I am a homosexual/bisexual man" the social ramifications would have been massive, though I doubt very positive.

You continue to confuse sodomy with homosexuality. They're not a default pairing, as it were. James did indeed speak about his love for Villiers, such instances are recorded from Privy Council meetings. In addition to the confusion about sodomy=/=homosexuality you seem to perpetuate in the idea that post-Elizabethan society exclusively despised homosexuals. They did not.

No, homosexuality was not some invisible thing no-one knew about or discussed, but a homosexual monarch would have been far, far beyond the norm.

Beyond the norm, but not hugely so. William (son of William the Bastard) enjoyed sodomy with anything he could get his hands on. Richard I and Philip of France shared a bed and spoke of their love for one another. Edward II and Piers Gaveston were certainly playing hold the sausage (and very likely hiding the sausage too). Richard II's relationship with de Vere was presumed sodomitic to the point that Usk cited it at a council meeting which called for Richard's deposition. So up to the reign of James I (whose madness and cruelty is undeniable, like that of his descendants) there were known precedents. After that time William II had a close relationship with a couple of mad Dutch lads after the death of his wife. Queen Anne was gay, quite openly so towards the end of her life.

that doesn't really feel like an actual reply to what i'm saying. If you're inferring some blanket statement about gay people being more compassionate or progressive by default then uh.... Not sure what you're talking about. As I said, I merely find it an entertaining concept that someone who clearly picked and chose which parts of the scripture to adhere to (the Catholic church was quite clear on where it stood on "Buggery" at this time) would be so superstitious as to burn women as witches. It's not a comment pertaining that "he was gay so he should neger have thought that", i'm just saying its an interesting sort of cognitive dissonance considering the church condemned hus behaviours as much as the witches - and he was actually DOING those behaviours, whereas witchcraft flat out isn't even real.

That's a religious argument, which parts of which arbitrary sets of legend should anybody choose to rationalise or legitimise? And how come you keep focussing on sodomy? It isn't the same as homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't a sin, acts of sterile sexuality (masturbation, nocturnal ejaculiation, sodomy) were. I'm not sure why you would confuse that with being gay?

Because it's an amusing little anecdote. Not everything I write is meant as an Earth-shattering revelation, and I hardly balanced my argument on this point alone.

That's fortunate because it was a strange point to make and had no meaning in context.

You're right! I made one statement about one thing a gay dude did once, so I MUST be making a sweeping generalisation about the character of ALL gay men, right? And I must be coming from the angle of seeing homosexuals as "other" to myself!

Don't put words in my mouth.

You found it strange that a gay man night be able to burn witches. It was an odd thing to say, especially as the presumable opposite is that straight men would have no trouble burning witches. Why even mention it?

I concede that these writings exist, but posit that they were almost certainly not public knowledge in the King's lifetime, and what he did in front of his court is different to what he would do in public, I'm sure. And certainly different in a church.

Shifting the goalposts on "open"? James I existed in his court and privy council, this is the age of Divine Right at its peak before his son finds that the people will stand it no longer. In James' society it was known that he went to work in either carriage. The paupers knew as little about his life as we do about the private life of QEII.

Same as above really. I'd like to remind you that I'm not trying to argue that he never had a relationship with a man, or that nobody ever knew about it. I just think "openly" gay isn't quite accurate for a man who married a woman.

That's a more favourable shift, despite us not knowing if he simply employed a dutiful line-preserving winkle for the wife. We'll settle for him being bi?

I was not sure that the correct historical term - buggery - is appropriate language for this forum, but either way, buggery was considered a form of sodomy by the church. Homosexual wasn't even a word at this point.

How are you separating the two in our definition?

To conclude, I think you've missed the point I'm making, and you also seem to have taken several stabs at making me out as some generalising homophobe... That is rather far off the mark, so please don't do it.

You should report any posts which upset you to the moderation/administration team.

 

[Daz555]

I don't get the logic of the 10.1% who say homosexuality is against god/nature. I'll assume we mean the Judeo/Christian god for the purposes of the survey.

Nature is the very thing that creates life that is homosexual (it is very common across many species).
If you believe in a god then you believe that god created nature.

So god created a universe in full knowledge about every single lifeform that would ever exist which would be homosexual. Why would it do that unless it wanted the universe to be that way?

Homosexuality - created by your god.

To say it is against nature/god is to say that god got it wrong. I thought god was infallible?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't get the logic of the 10.1% who say homosexuality is against god/nature. I'll assume we mean the Judeo/Christian god for the purposes of the survey.

Whose 10.1% are you referring to, and you mean the "Abrahamic" god, it's the same god in judaism, christianity and muslamicalism.

 

[Roo]

Whose 10.1% are you referring to

The 10.1% in the poll at the top of the page.

@Daz555 The poll is 16 years old. I wonder how different the answers would be if everyone who voted was asked again today.

 

[Imari]

The 10.1% in the poll at the top of the page.

@Daz555 The poll is 16 years old. I wonder how different the answers would be if everyone who voted was asked again today.

I'm not sure that cultural bias changes that much in just a decade or two. Look at how long feminism has been around, and being female isn't considered the sin that homosexuality is.