I’ve noticed that if you point out the dangers of certain things, some people will assume you are trying to force your morals on them, while with others they don’t?
If I tell someone that speeding is dangerous, nobody will assume that I think speeding is immoral or that I am judging the character of the speeder.
If I tell someone that extreme promiscuity is dangerous, I get told that I am being judgemental.
There’s no real difference between those two statements for me, though. I’ve also run into this with drugs, to a lesser extent. If I tell someone that long term use of certain drugs can lead to serious health problems, I get told that I don’t want other people to have fun, that I’m ignorant for thinking drugs are wrong, etc.
I can understand that people get used to judgemental people giving them grief over certain things, but it gets to the point where people EXPECT it. I can tell the difference between when someone says that drug use is wrong for some religious or moral reason and when they are telling me that drugs can cause health problems (in the latter case I’ll agree and explain that I personally think some things are worth the risk, while in the former I will just say I disagree and stop talking to them).
Badtz, old buddy, you’re just gonna have to stand your ground and take some lumps. Maybe they’ll come around to your way of thinking. Or maybe you’ll move closer to theirs.
Maybe you shouldn’t expect people who have spent their (our) entire lives having people tell us in no uncertain terms who we should and should not sleep with to be butt-kissingly grateful for further advice in that regard.
Although I feel that the GLBT communities have certainly earned the right to a little defensive behavior, I would counter this statement by saying that perhaps people should not be so quick on the trigger to mistake genuine informed concern for moralizing or value judgements.
I would be as upset (well, not asupset, but upset nevertheless) by Esprix catching an STD or contracting AIDS as I would be by my mother contracting lung cancer or emphysema, even if it was his or her own behavior that led to it. Does that mean I should not express concern to my mother that she should quit smoking?
Telling people that the choices they are making in their lives are dangerous can be interpreted as either loving concern, or inappropriate intruding, depending on the relationship you have with the person. I expect my mom to tell me not to drive too fast, and to wear a coat, and to make sure I eat lots of vegetables. If a stranger or acquaintance said the same things, I would be irritated. Without sufficient knowledge or experience about my life, any suggestions or opinions you state about my choices comes across as presumptuous, and possibly judgemental.
FTR, I thought Badtz’s comments quoted above were reasonably innocuous, and the person who reacted was being too defensive. But, in general, I’m hesitant to volunteer statements like “smoking will kill you” to smokers, unless they’re family or close friends and I think I can make a difference by pointing it out.
This is kind of semi-related, but I was reading some thread somewhere and someone said they couldn’t eat chocolate because the doctor says it’s bad for them.
It got me thinking: Doctors say smoking is bad for you and you shouldn’t do it, yet people do it anyway. However, if your doctor says to cut back on high cholestorol foods, or in the above example chocoloate, most people will listen to that advice. (I could be wrong by the way, I have no statistics)
Maybe the thing is that they don’t believe what you’re telling them as fact. Since they don’t believe it’s true, they think it’s propaganda to get them to stop, thus get annoyed that you’re trying to “convert” them.
Whatever. I just let people make their own mistakes, and don’t get involved unless it directly affects me. Plus I like to avoid confrontations whenever possible.
Nicotine is a very addictive drug. Smoking is a horrible habit, and I think every smoker knows that, they just don’t want to face up to it. I quit smoking cigarettes. Three times. Every time, it was the hardest thing I ever had to do. It’s likely just as hard to quit illegal drugs. Some people don’t want to hear it. They will deal with the consequences at some point in time.
As for the OP, when people feel their life’s choices are being judged, I guess you can expect a defensive stance.
As I stated, I can understand how some people encounter a lot of judgemental people, and I can understand being a bit wary…but I don’t think it’s fair to expect that everyone who tells you something is telling it to you for the same reason. If someone had jumped to the wrong conclusion about my motives, but accepted my explanation when I corrected them, this thread wouldn’t be here. But I was in effect called a liar when I said that I wasn’t trying to give moral advice and that prudishness had nothing to do with my statements on promiscuity. I was continued to be accused of being some holier-than-thou moral bigot, when that is far from the truth.
Is it just that people don’t want to admit they were wrong, or feel the need to group everyone who disagrees with them in one easy-to-hate group, or is it something else I don’t understand?
OK, I actually read the thread you linked, and not just the quotes you posted, and I think you were being irritating, Badtz. Sorry.
If someone had started a thread saying “I’m thinking about having sex with a big pile of guys – what do you think?”, your comments probably would have been relevant. But you essentially jumped into the middle of a judgemental back and forth about Esprix’s life and said (in essence):
Having lots of sex makes it much more likely he’ll get an STD than if he didn’t have lots of sex.
If he gets AIDS, you’re going to have to help pay for it.
The first one just comes across as judgemental – you’re trying to give him reasons why his actions are a bad idea. The second comes across as if you have a right to tell him what to do, because it affects you if he makes bad choices. That’s stupid.
Your intentions can be pure, but in the context in which you offered your helpful observations, you come across badly. Let it go. Move on.
Batz,
Instead of the this pit thread, please accept my invitation to distill your point of view into a rational argument and post it in GD, where it can be hashed-over for its forensic merits vs detriments.
As an imperfect contributor to the same thread to which you refer, I would wish more light and less smoke be added to the topic. That is my sole angle - there is no other reason tha i’m now posting to your thread.
If you wish to offer dissent to what I myself recognize as the ACT-UP-style advocacy of gay rights, please do so rationally. But remember - you are obligating yourself to taking a positioned stance on an issue that involves both sex and death - neither of which have ever welcomed reason. But for ammunition, I can offer you ACT-UP’s traditonal rallying cry of “silence = death.” What could be less silent than clearly stated fact? Exact words are the loudest thing makind can comprehend. I mean no hyperbole - the worst atomic bomb and the most Gandhian of social transformations were built upon the communication of exact words.
Pit threads take only two forms: “fuck you, fuck you…” and “my heart is like a wounded faun in the forest.” Both these are nothing more than salves to the wounded soul (another two tried and true salves to the soul: promiscuous sex, and the rush to judgement against promiscuous sex, both salves of which come from the lexicon my life lived far too long - and thereby hangs an old man’s tiresome tale).
So to recap: In he pit it’s either
(a) the “Fuck you” ad nauseam museum
(b) the “my heart is like a wounded faun in the forest” bestiary
Otherwise give it a skeleton, slap some meat on it and kick it in the coccyx into GD. Get to work, young brains - you must fix lives left you by flawed seniors like myself.