Forbidden? It’s expected, dude. Every girl I have dated in the last ten years thinks it must be done or you aren’t sufficiently concerned with her pleasure.
It is if it is a counter argument to the notion that all persons must be vaccianted or die.
Wait, who says that all persons must be vaccinated or die?
I’ve never heard anyone suggest that everybody who doesn’t get vaccinated against X is going to die of X. In fact, it’s pretty well known that the risk of even contracting X is fairly low, as long as most people in a society are vaccinated against it. Cite, please, for the idea that folks go around saying that being unvaccinated = death?
(Well, okay, we all die, vaccinated or not, but that’s not my point.)
I have definitely heard the greater theme often invoked that “we did ____ and we all survived.” Often relating cross country road trips without seat belts, drinking and boating, and other now illegal behaviors at which a casual glance at statistics would show that “we” did not all survive, unless “we” means “those of us who survived.”
Thanks, Captain Obvious. When someone makes that argument, we’ll let you know.
Homophobia isn’t intended to be a clinical term. It means, “someone who is prejudiced against homosexuals,” and is meant to be considered on par with “racist” or “sexist.” No one who uses the word “homophobe” expects it to be understood as an accusation of mental illness. Indeed, most gay rights activists would argue strongly against the idea of viewing prejudice against gays as a mental illness. Witness, for example, the widespread resistance amongst the gay community to the “gay panic” defense in gay-bashing trials.
How do you feel about anal sex with women?
For that matter, how do you feel about gay couples who don’t do anal sex?
To the contrary: it’s a useful label to identify a specific brand of bigotry. Prejudice against gays is similar to, but distinct from, prejudice against race, prejudice against gender, and prejudice against religion. It’s natural, then, that a distinct word was adopted to identify this prejudice, and allow it to be discussed.
“Homophobe” doesn’t mean, “unreasonable fear of gays,” it means, "prejudice against gays. And there is an opposite analog: “heterophobes” do exist. It’s much, much rarer, of course, but it certainly does exist.
People criticizing “the gay lifestyle” makes me pretty pukey, too, so I can certainly sympathize.
Oh, nonsense. Explicitly homophobic comments from national-level politicians are extremely common. Yeah, it pisses off gay rights groups. But it fires up the right-wing Christian groups, and since the gay rights groups generally aren’t going to vote for, say, Michelle Bachman in the first place, it doesn’t particularly hurt her to be married to her crazy-pants fake-doctor homophobe of a husband.
What?
Yes, all men have lust. Most men have heterosexual lust. When they act immorally in pursuit of that lust, they act on it with women. Because they are straight men. If someone pursues that lust into the arms of another man, they did it because they’re homosexuals. Who are sexually attracted to men.
See, this is the part where you start losing a heterosexual audience that’s willing to take two seconds to think about what you’re saying. Because your average straight guy, he’s going to think, “You know, even if I was super-horny, and utterly indifferent to any sort of moral consideration, I still don’t see me putting a dick in my mouth.” Most straight guy’s minds just don’t work like that. It’s kind of a big part of that whole “straight” thing.
In other words, if you think the idea that someone like Ted Haggard would be heterosexual, except he just couldn’t withstand that sweet, sweet siren song of gay sex, then… well, lets just say you have an atypical understanding of heterosexuality.
So, he was always attracted to women, but didn’t have any strong objection to sleeping with a guy? Sounds like he’s bisexual to me. Probably still is, if he’d be willing to go back to sleeping with guys if he experienced another drought.
I’m guessing pretty close to zero. The thing to remember is, gays are a tiny percentage of the over all population. Probably not more than two or three percent. The average gay guy, over the course of his life, is going to meet more available heterosexual women, then available homosexual men, by several orders of magnitude. Anyone identifying as gay who was just waiting for “the right girl,” is going to be selected out of the gay community pretty quickly, as it’s generally a hell of a lot easier for a guy to meet Ms. Right than Mr. Right.
The thing is, the people you accuse us of bullying? They’re trying to deprive us of precisely those things you think shouldn’t be denied to us. We can’t hang on to those things if we don’t fight back. I’m not saying that justifies dishonest or deceitful tactics, but standing up and saying, “Discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. It’s as wrong as discrimination against blacks. It’s as wrong as discrimination against Jews. And the people who discriminate against gays are no better than the racists and anti-Semites that this country has so roundly rejected in the last hundred years.”
I can only assume you’re talking about Twilight-style vampires, in which case I wholeheartedly approve.
I think he’s talking about the recent practice of throwing glitter on various conservative individuals as a form of civil protest. Here’s an Atlantic article about it. Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Gingrich have all been nailed recently. I think throwing things at political candidates is an act which ought to be discouraged by rational folk. On the other hand, shrieking “you’re going to put somebody’s eye out with that stuff!!!” is, well, amusing in a way which invites an … unfortunate response.
The rest of your excellent post is well said, of course.
[quote=“Una_Persson, post:99, topic:587479”]
The study itself is interesting - at least when on reads the whole study, rather than the abstract - albeit very limited. /QUOTE]
Thanks for that Una, I was going by heuristics - when one study keeps getting mentioned, its time to start wondering how much followup has occurred.
Its a pity it is so understudied, I suspect part of the problem now is that kind of design would have more trouble being approved now.
Otara
Uh, I’m pretty sure Lobohan was being literal when he says “eating a chick’s shit,” is forbidden and nasty. He’s not using it as a euphemism for oral sex. And honestly, what guy describes going down on a woman like that?
You sure have some strange ideas.
Is it really that low? I always figured gay people were around 10% of the population–on the order of, say, left-handedness instead of albinism (which is around 1%?).
The new Palmolive Lust? You’re soaking in it!
[Rest of David42’s largely inane post snipped.]
My impression is that his (David42’s) comment was intended to be puckish, in a Henny Youngman-ish “take my wife, please,” low-key misogynistic way.
You know, “Can’t live with 'em, can’t live without 'em; gotta eat their shit if you want to get laid.” Huuhhhr.
You misunderstand the term. “A persistant, abnormal and irrational fear” is the psychological definition of a phobia but, as Miller pointed out, ‘homophobia’ is not a psychological term. ‘Phobia’ comes from the Greek word phobos, which originally meant “flight” and later came to mean “fear, horror or aversion”. No-one believes that homophobes actually harbour a persistant, irrational fear of gay people any more than chemists believe hydrophobic molecules are terrified of water. Homophobia is an aversion to homosexuals.
Well, as I explained upthread, the studies themselves could be providing evidence for this explanation, which is what makes it a “confounding variable.” Please feel free to google that term and learn something. The aggression. And anti-women factors someone else mentioned are other confoundig variables.
10% comes from Kinsey, and for a long time, that was the number that got quoted, but that was a pretty bad study. It’s impossible to know for sure, but recent estimates say it’s somewhere between 3-8%, with gay right groups tending to favor higher numbers and anti-gay groups tending to favor lower numbers.
If we have completely finished with the [del]hijacks[/del] thread drift here, including David42’s rather strange worldviews about “the gays”, may I point out that the thread topic is a particularly repulsive example of excusing away anti-gay bullying, and ee if, just possibly, we can get back on topic.
Bullying has been around for a long time. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right now. In much of America, gay kids, or those perceived as gay, are particular targets, though anyone who is in some way “different” is to some extent a target. Surviving though it, or learning to defend oneself, is not an acceptable solution. Stopping the bullying, to the extent possible, is. I have a bunch of observations on the subject, if we can get back on it.
Thank you.
While it would be nice to stop bullying, I don’t know that it’s possible. I think it’s human nature to dislike or distrust people who are different or stand out, and for people to pick on those who are vulnerable.
It might not be possible to stop it but it is certainly possible to lessen it.
I don’t know about men, but there have been studies that suggest that women have rape fantasies because it fulfills the fantasy of being irresistible while not having to have the responsibility of being selective in choosing a mate. Read a bodice-ripper and you’ll see that the main focus is how desirable the woman is to every man in the book. Obviously the horrific aspects of a rape is not included or at least strongly downplayed in the fantasy.
I find the notion of finding something exciting simply because it’s ‘wrong’ to be bizarre but I could kind of picture extreme social conservatives thinking that way. Either they have fucked up desires to begin with or they whip themselves up into a frenzy by their constant focus on what’s wrong, wrong, wrong, until it because sexually desirable??? Sort of a self-induced obsessive-compulsive disorder. :eek:
Probably some, if you punish it badly enough. But I think largely, that’ll just move it underground. That’s why I think teaching people to survive it and defend themselves are good solutions, and probably will be more effective than trying to stop it, not that we shouldn’t try to do all three.