Guin: we can debate about mostly versus sometimes, and i would agree with jayjay that attractiveness is not the cause, but I would argue that in prison at least, neither is power/domination except as an afterthought. The lack of sex is.
The reason I object is that it is tiring to hear these old tales trotted out as common wisdom when they are far from proven truth. There are too many factors in this, as in everything in life, to point to one pop-psychological motivation for it.
Okay, let me know where you stop following:
The term “gay rights” is used on this boards to denote things which I do not consider to be gay rights.
Do you understand that sentence?
I do not accept everything that is considered “gay rights”.
How about that one?
This does not mean that I am opposed to gay rights.
And this one?
Hmm, many interesting experiences and perspectives!
Me: I think the Board is without a doubt the community with the most non-spectacular just plain old everyday presence of openly gay participants of both genders of any community of which I’ve been a part.
Certainly I’ve been in classrooms, workplaces, and parties with gay people, but to a substantial degree the fact of them being out made their gayness and the general issue of sexual preference take center stage. Everything they’d say was heard as “The gay person’s perspective on such-and-such”. Everything said to them was “What you wish to express to gay people, as indicated by how you just spoke to their local representative”.
On the Board, there are enough gay people that you can call a gay person a jerk without calling them a gay jerk. You can be a jerk and gay and not be a gay jerk. Instead of “the” gay perspective on anything you have Great Debates threads in which these five gay people are more or less in agreement with some aspect of the central question, and expressing their disagreement with those three gay people who are more or less inclined to think in this different fashion on that terrain, and then have other gay people drop into the thread and not even express interest in that aspect of the central question, there’s something else that has caught their attention that they want to post about…
And so being around gay people as general participants in everything is just normative
Not sure I’m explaining this well. It’s hard to make a coherent remark on the “un-self-conscious of-courseness” of something, I guess? I do think this has changed the way I view gay issues and what it means to be gay.
That’s exactly the rude, completely nonconstructive response that I was talking about. Despite feeling that my post was quite clear, I went to the truoble of further explaining it and asking what, if anything, is unclear. And you respond with a flippant post.
No, it is largely a matter of two different and distinct classifications of human sexuality - “bisexuality” and “pedophilia.”
If we do not use the same language we cannot communicate. I have lost my copy of The The Ryan Dictionary, so I would prefer if you and I both used Merriam-Webster.
And you would be wrong. Rape is about power. Prison rapes are about power. What part of that are you not getting? I mean, I won’t argue with you that there is a high likelihood that prison rapists may have some degree of bisexuality in them to start with, but to give that over as the reason they rape other inmates is ridiculous.
It’s sad that there are still people out there that don’t understand that people don’t rape other people because they’re horny. They rape other people because they have a need to assert their power over that person. Whether it’s a misogynist asserting that his masculinity is, indeed, greater than a woman, or the prison rapist establishing the pecking order, it’s about power.
This is exactly the sort of silliness that I’m talking about. “Nomenclature”. “semantics”, and “classification” all convey the same concept. What’s with your obsession with people using exactly the same words as you in exactly the same way?
Oh, please. You claim for yourself the right to declare what the meaning of a word is, regardless of how it’s actually used or even what the dictionary says, so don’t try to tell me that you prefer the Merrian-Webster. You prefer whatever is convenient. According to M-W, “homosexual” is “of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex”. Are you still going to claim you consider it to be the Last Word? Reasonable people accept that other people don’t use words exactly the same way as them, and don’t accuse them of not using the same language simply because they disagree about shades of meaning.
I am agog that as the most infamous arguer for precision in word choice you’re berating me for doing the same, and in fact are, in this case, arguing that three different words “convey the same concept.”
You, sir, are the biggest, most laughable fraud on this message board. Why your disingeniousness hasn’t gotten you banned I’ll never know.
And how you cannot see that bisexuality, which refers to sexual attraction to either gender, and pedophilia, which refers to sexual attraction to children, when speaking in the context of mature sexual relationships are two different concepts is beyond me.
But we all already know your thought process:
[ul][li]Children can be either gender[/li][li]Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender[/li][li]Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual[/ul][/li]
By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles. The key point you’re missing is that people with a bisexual orientation engage in consensual, adult relationships with people of either gender, as opposed to pedophiles who engage in non-consensual, non-adult relationships with children of either gender.
No one is going to argue with you that children can be of either gender, but everyone is arguing with you that bisexuality is not pedophilia.
Sadly, I’m sure you’ll parse this post into small bite-sized pieces that no one will be able to stomach.
This is your rebuttal to the assertion that you are making a nonexistent distinction? “I know you are, but what am I?” And the fact that you are left perplexed by the idea that three different words could convey the same concept certainly says quite about you. What, did you skip school the day they introduced the word “synonym”?
You repeatedly lie and make false implications, and then call me a fraud? Just look at how you’re responding to me: a bunch of ad hominem statements, silly strawmen, and a call for my banning for daring to disagree with you. Sorry, but I didn’t see “Don’t disagree with Esprix” on the list of rules. I did see “Don’t be a jerk”, a rule you seem to think doesn’t apply to you.
Your accusation of disingenuity would ring much truer if didn’t keep making up positions for me. I have never exhibited any inability to distinguish between the two concepts. What is beyond me is how you are unable to comprehend that “mutually exclusive” and “different concepts” are themselves different concepts. Simply because I think that two categories overlap, that doesn’t mean I think they are the same.
That is one of the most bizarre non sequitors I have ever seen. Can you explain where you could possibly get that?
If you’re saying that bisexuals mostly engage in consensual relationships, then I have never said differently, and you’re engaged in your usual strawman construction. If you’re saying that no bisexual ever engages in nonconsensual relationships, well, that’s so absurd I can’t think of a response.
I post that people are misrepresenting my position, and you respond by misrepresenting my position. And I’m the one that “just doesn’t get it”?
How about citing a single place where I have said that bisexuality or homsexuality is pedophilia? Or else an apology for so badly mutilating my position?
MrVisible
Don’t worry; while there’s plenty of semantics, there doesn’t seem to be any danger of Esprix actually having an argument. But then, you probably think that “Nope. Maybe try English?” is a valid argument. Can you find any place where I have said that bisexuality is pedophilia?
Well, I’m sorely tempted to leave my comment on that as ‘bollocks’.
No seriously, what? “Couldn’t care less”? What world do you live in where all straight people couldn’t care less about homosexuality? That’s just so…not right. Morals derived from religion have dictated that homosexuality is wrong. These are attitudes that have been around for years, and have nothing to do with gay people talking about their sexualities (which I’m convinced is shite, in my experience, straight men have an obsession with homosexuality and have to be homophobic every five minutes, and I don’t hear gay men going on about how they’re gay - maybe you’re referring to them campaigning for rights - how terrible) why do you think homosexuality was specifically prohibited in the nineteenth century? I don’t think gays went on about it then. ‘Oh, that Oscar Wilde. He’s an annoying cunt, always going on about his gayness. Let’s lock him up.’
Esprix, if you’re going to make such an egregious accusation as that I believe that bisexuality and pedophilia are the same thing, I believe I an entitled to have an explanation as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
Thanks to this board and learning that a one of my closest friends is gay, I have become much more firmly and vocally pro-homosexual. I was all along, but this board has given me the arguments to refute some of the arguments against homosexuality. I might have waivered before; I won’t now.
Between you and my old friend, I have learned a lot about the reality of being homosexual, including the little, every day frustrations such as not knowing how people will react when you mention your SO. Thank you, Esprix, gobear, MattMcL, Scott Evil, and lissener, for all you have taught me.
I have always felt that teaching by example can help alot.Things slowly get better. But it takes work and maintenance. Being gay, out, open, and willing to answer sensible questions has helped me. Being Big, and a bit somber looking (I know I know) helps too. Being silly and fun helps too. It helps dealing with those who think that gay men are a disease. I see that alot in my local community. Not much to my face though. 87)).
