Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You're either straight, gay, or lying?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 158 (511362)
06-09-2009 1:57 PM


What about transgenders? If a biological male feels that she is a female trapped in a male body, is she gay? Does the definition change pre- vs post-op? Would you refer to the person as he, she, or it? Does it make a difference whether the person is sexually attracted to men? Women? Both?
Why the obsession with labeling someone as "gay" or "straight?" Why not simply let the person label themselves, since nobody knows person's motivations and attractions better than the person him/herself?
I've known both men and women who were gay, straight, bi, or transsexual. It seems to me that sexuality is a sliding scale - some people are attracted to both sexes equally, some lean a little one way more than the other, and some people are at the extremes. Transsexuals add on the issue of gender identification to the "what am I attracted to" scale.
Personally, I refer to people they way they refer to themselves. If a person tells me they are bisexual, I refer to them as bisexual without questioning whether having performed fellatio makes one irrevocably "gay for life." If a transsexual prefers to be identified as female, I oblige. I find that social and personal identity are more relevant in everyday life than technicalities of genetics or past behavior.
That, and I really see no reason to insist that a transgendered female is actually still a man, or insist that a bisexual man is gay despite their attempts to correct me. The best I could expect is to be seen as a hurtful bigot in such a situation. Accepting other people's self-identification typically makes interpersonal interactions run a bit smoother, promotes tolerance of people whose life experiences differ from my own, and basically makes the world a better place.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-09-2009 6:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 158 (511377)
06-09-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
In any case, yes, I would agree that the more a person endeavors in meaningless, casual sex, the more they desensitize themselves to meaningful relationships.
Bullshit.
I think they run a risk of being incapable of associating sex with love to the point where the two are nowhere near synonymous.
Who cares?
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
Love exists independently from sex. Many non-sexual relationships are normal, healthy, and extremely deep and committed. Friendships, family members, even spousal love where one partner has been injured or is otherwise unable to have sex, are all deeply committed, healthy examples of love that does not require sex.
I personally know couples that are deeply committed and madly in love with each other, but who do have casual sex outside of their relationship. It hasn't lessened the amount of love and respect they have for each other.
Love, being a subjective human emotion, is different from one person to the next. Don't make the mistake of assuming that love must work for everyone else the same way that it works for you. Casual sex and even polyamory do not necessarily have any effect on a person's capacity to feel love and engage in committed relationships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 77 of 158 (511436)
06-09-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
quote:
Bullshit.
Ummmm.... Okay...
quote:
Who cares?
Well, me, for one...
Haven't you seen those very sad people that can't form meaningful relationships and live their lives in continual, destructive relationships? And you ask, "Who cares?" I care. I don't like to see people hurt. That's like saying, who cares about drug addicts? I care. They are welcome to live whatever lifestyle they choose, but shooting rays of sunshine up their ass by pretending it's not self-destructive isn't the way to go about it.
I'm telling you that, for many people, it is not self-destructive.
It's not a universal. People who have casual sex can and do form committed, loving, long-term relationships. There is no pretending involved.
I don't like seeing people hurt, either - but I also feel the need to correct those who think that the way they feel is the way everyone feels. Perhaps casual sex would in fact dull your ability to feel love, because for you sex and love are hopelessly intwined. That's not necessarily the case for me, or anyone else. As I said, I know many people who engage in casual sex, and yet are also in deeply committed, loving and healthy relationships. Some of those people share their sexual partners, some do not. But saying that casual sex inevitably leads to dulling an individual's ability to bond to another person on an emotional level is patently fucking flase.
quote:
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
So, then, tell me... If there is such a big difference between sex and love, then why do mates become jealous of affairs? Why do they feel so hurt if it's just sex?
Becasue of the lying and betrayal, genius. And not everyone gets jealous over sex. I and my partner are both able to have sex with whomever we choose. I'm not jealous of the people she's had sex with, and she's not jealous of me. We have a happy, committed, long-term relationship, and we are perfectly capable of bonding emotionally regardless of any sexual activities.
If she slept with someone else and didn't tell me about it, then I'd be upset, not becasue of the sex (I've never agreed with the social value placed on "purity" or that I somehow have "ownership" of my partner's sexuality beyond what we agree to ourselves), but because she would have done it behind my back.
If a couple are in a monogamous relationship where they both agree that neither will have sex outside of the relationship, then any outside sex would constitute dishonesty and betrayal. My point is that this does not describe all relationships.
quote:
Love exists independently from sex.
Yes, I agree to an extent, but I think you are oversimplifying. Wouldn't you also agree that there are different forms of love. Is my love for music the same as my love for my dog? Is the love for my dog the same as my love for my father? Is my love for my father the same as the love for my wife? Is the love for my wife the same as the love for my son?
Are they really different beyond the degree of the bond shared? I love my family, and the love I feel for my partner can be described as "different" in that she knows me better and so the bond is deeper, and because we are sexually attracted to each other. Were I to have a child, that very same bond would still exist, simply without the sexual attraction (obviously). It seems to me that love is love is love, and there are simply degrees and extras that differenciate love between family/friends/spouse/etc.
I'm not saying that if you engage in some casual sex that you'll all-of-a-sudden turn in to some sex-crazed, disease-infested whore. Shit, I've had plenty of casual sex in my time. I'm just recognizing that there are consequences for our actions. The human psyche is a fragile thing; more fragile than I think we aware of. I'm simply saying that the more we indulge in it and trivial sex, the more social problems we run the risk of having.
And I'm saying that you're playing armchair psychologist and speaking from the orifice typically utilized for expelling solid waste. Casual sex need not have consequences in terms of the ability to bond with other human beings. The actual consequences of casual sex are an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs, both of which can be controlled to some extent. The emotional consequences you're talking about do not always apply.
Is that really such a bizarre interpretation?
Bizarre? No. It's simply the result of "common-sense" idiocy. Just becasue it "makes sense" to you personally doesn't mean it actually applies in the real world. Again, you're playing armchair psychologist.
quote:
I personally know couples that are deeply committed and madly in love with each other, but who do have casual sex outside of their relationship. It hasn't lessened the amount of love and respect they have for each other.
Great, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, nor does it mean that there are not issues within that relationship because of that lifestyle. Very few couples can actually live a swinger lifestyle while maintaining a healthy relationship. I, too, know swinger couples. And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
What exactly is "the norm?" Who defines it? Is it anything more than an appeal to popularity, where whatever the most people do must be the "right" way? Because that's all it appears to be.
How many monogamous relationships are stable? It looks to me like all human interactions runt he risk of being filled with conflict and drama, whether they are mongamout, polyamorous, straight, gay, bisexual, or even just friends. The mere fact that interaction requires multiple distinct individual personalities means that some degree of conflict and itnerpersonal tension is inevitable, and the deeper a personal bond that exists, the more painful the conflict can be if/when it arises.
Why are you singling out polyamorous relationships? Because for every poly relationship I know of, I can point to a dozen monogamous relationships that are self-destructive, abusive, unhealthy, filled with lies, and downright just awful.
I think you're singling out people who engage in casual sex because they're different, and becasue you are personally incredulous at the idea of a stable, committed relationship that is not monogamous.
quote:
Love, being a subjective human emotion, is different from one person to the next. Don't make the mistake of assuming that love must work for everyone else the same way that it works for you. Casual sex and even polyamory do not necessarily have any effect on a person's capacity to feel love and engage in committed relationships.
If what you speak of was true in most cases, the entire world would live this way.
Why? I said it's not the same for everyone. Many people like being monogamous.
The evidence is overwhelmingly not in your favor.
WHAT EVIDENCE? Point out where in this thread you have used any sort of evidence beyond personal anecdotes. Granted, I've doen the same, but don't feed me a pile of bullshit by saying the evidence is against me when you've not even attempted to show any.
And it is entirely independent of cultural differences. Seems like there is something a little more hardwired than that, knowing that this is the case.
Wrong. Many cultures have engaged in non-monogamous traditions. Typically, this involves polgamy, though I've heard of women with multiple husbands as well. Just because monogamy is widespread today in developed countries doesnt mean that there's anything hardwired.
You have to ask yourself why that is while trying to sell the pipe dream.
To reiterate: If you want to have lots of casual sex with lots of willing partners, you are more than welcome to it. But I also don't think that Taz's observations here are ridiculous. He makes a good point, as do you to some degree.
I didn't ask for your permission, nor do I require your blessing. I'm simply stating that human relationships are many and widely varied, and that blanket statements like "casual sex leads to reduced capacity to establish meaningful relationships and bond to other people" are ignorant and demonstrative of armchair psychology. Not everyone thinks, feels, loves, or bonds the same way you or Taz or I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:27 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 105 of 158 (511897)
06-12-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 12:27 PM


quote:
I also feel the need to correct those who think that the way they feel is the way everyone feels.
I understand that and agree. All I am really saying is that with many people it is known to cause some problems. That does not mean everyone. But in all reality, how many hookers out there find a deep sense of job satisfaction? How many are really fucked up in the head, due in part to their job? I think it takes a toll on people more than they are aware.
To expand on CS' response to this, most hookers have issues because of the abuse (both before and during their "employment") that statistically goes with thier profession. In places where prostitution is legal (and thus the prostitute can call on the authorities for protection ratehr than a pimp, for example) far fewer hookers tend to have such serious issues.
The sex itself, it would appear, doesn't have much of an effect at all. Ever seen the HBO series about the legal bordello in Nevada? Those girls seem to be perfectly happy with their jobs.
quote:
Becasue of the lying and betrayal, genius.
Ah, but that begs the question... Why must one lie in the first place? Obviously there is a stigma that exists before the action of lying or cheating begins, right? So, it's self-defeating to say that it is because of lying and betrayal, especially when taken in its context.
The lying and betrayal happens when a couple has specifically entered a monogamous relationship, and one person violates that agreement. The stigma is created by the couple themselves - one partner knows, because of their relationship, that the other will not allow an affair, and so he/she lies about it.
That stigma does not always exist. It depends on the boundaries of the relationship. I do believe that, when it comes to human sexuality, "normal" is a lot more strange and varied than you would imagine. Which is my point - you're excluding a wide range of relationships from classification as "normal" based on...what, exactly? Public perception of normal? We all know that, with sexuality more so than other things, "public perception" and "what's going on under the covers" are rather widely divided.
quote:
And I'm saying that you're playing armchair psychologist and speaking from the orifice typically utilized for expelling solid waste. Casual sex need not have consequences in terms of the ability to bond with other human beings. The actual consequences of casual sex are an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs, both of which can be controlled to some extent. The emotional consequences you're talking about do not always apply.
I'm not suggesting that they always apply. There are exceptions to every rule. I am speaking about normative, human behavior. Not everyone feels remorse, as in the case with sociopaths, but most people do. That's a good thing.
Thats a rather curious comparison to use - sociopaths feeling no remorse, compared to those who can have guilt-free casual sex within the bounds of a polyamorous relationship. But I think that you'd find such relationships to be far more common, as well as far less sinister, than sociopaths. And I think you'd be surprised at what "most" people do or have done with regards to sexuality. This isn't the 1950s...and even then... I think that those who engage in casual sex without being diminished in their capacity to feel love and bond with others is far closer to "the rule" and less the "exception" than you believe.
quote:
How many monogamous relationships are stable? It looks to me like all human interactions runt he risk of being filled with conflict and drama
Naturally, but right now you are comparing apples to oranges. So because life itself involves risk, it somehow undermines specific risks? That's being far too broad.
Perhaps you should try reading again.
I'm saying that polyamorous relationships are no less stable than monogamous relationships; that the perceived instability is due to selection bias and the nature of human relationships that affects both types. I'm saying that there is no real heightened risk associated with polyamorous relationships. The "risk" of a polyamorous relationship is no different from the "risk" of a monogamous one. Unless you'd care to prove that there is a heightened risk associated with polyamorous relationships? Since you're the one making that claim, the burden of proof rests on you.
quote:
What exactly is "the norm?" Who defines it? Is it anything more than an appeal to popularity, where whatever the most people do must be the "right" way?
Normative behavior is a predominant behavioral trait shared by a species. Doctors and scientists don't so much assign as it as they do observe the phenomena and then report on it. But I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong. I'm not saying there is some moral imperative at hand here. I'm just saying that there is a dichotomy here.
And yet human relationships aren't like those of animal species: there isn't really a predominant species behavior associated with sexuality. It changes based on culture, not biology. Some humans mate for life; some mate sequencially and monogamously; some practice polygyny, and others simply have casual sex. Sometimes an individual person can go through several of these - casual sex, a monogamous marriage intended to be lifelong, followed by a divorce and remarriage, etc. Predominance only arises culturally among humans...and in modern, western culture, the predominant trait is that people tend to be doing more under the covers than the rest of us are led to believe.
So again, who gets to be the arbiter of "normalcy" and "healthy behavior?" The majority of people I know engage in what you would likely consider "abnormal" sexuality (though not necessarily all of the same types). Many of them are in stable, healthy, long-term relationships, whether those relationships are what you'd call "normal" or not.
quote:
WHAT EVIDENCE? Point out where in this thread you have used any sort of evidence beyond personal anecdotes. Granted, I've doen the same, but don't feed me a pile of bullshit by saying the evidence is against me when you've not even attempted to show any.
The evidence I was referring to is all around us in society. It's observational.
So, what...anecdotal? Well, we have a problem then - my anecdotes against yours. It's unfortunate that they don't really prove anything.
So how about this: since you're the one making a claim (that casual sex carries a higher risk of diminishing participants' ability to bond with others of have healthy, loving relationships in the future), immediately present non anecdotal evidence or concede that you don't have any, and thus your claim is baseless.
quote:
Many cultures have engaged in non-monogamous traditions. Typically, this involves polgamy, though I've heard of women with multiple husbands as well. Just because monogamy is widespread today in developed countries doesnt mean that there's anything hardwired.
Which societies?
From Wikipedia:
quote:
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[2] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[8] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy
...
Until 1935 polygyny was legally recognised in Thailand. In Burma, polygyny was also frequent. In Sri Lanka, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) till recent times. [9] When the Buddhist texts were translated into Chinese, the concubines of others were added to the list of inappropriate partners. In Tibet as well, both polygyny and polyandry were commonly practiced. Having several wives or several husbands was never regarded as having sex with inappropriate partners.
...
Both polygyny and polyandry were practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times.
...
The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists. Notable examples include Abraham, who bore for himself a child through his wife's maidservant;[15] Jacob, who had fallen in love with Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her sister, Leah;[16] David, who inherited his wives from Saul;[17] and perhaps most famously, Solomon, who was led astray by his wives
...
The history of Mormon polygamy (more accurately, polygyny) begins with belief that Mormonism founder Joseph Smith received a revelation from God on July 17, 1831 that some Mormon men would be allowed to practice "plural marriage".
...
In Islam, polygamy is allowed for men, with the specific limitation that they can only have up to four wives at any one time, by considering the first wife's wishes...In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures[citation needed], Saudi Arabia, West and East Africa (In Sudan it is encouraged from the president as female population is high).[54] Among the 22 member states of the Arab League, Tunisia alone explicitly prohibits polygamy;
...
In South Africa, traditionalists commonly practice polygamy.[61] The president, Jacob Zuma is also openly in favor of plural marriages, being married to numerous wives himself.
...
Polygamy is encouraged in countries such as Sudan, where President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has encouraged multiple marriages to increase the population.
And that's jsut polygamy, which is restricted to non-monogamous marriage. That doesn't even begin to cover the whole of cultures where non-monogamous relationships were common. Homosexual affairs were accepted and commonplace in Rome, Greece, and even Europe at various times.
quote:
I didn't ask for your permission, nor do I require your blessing. I'm simply stating that human relationships are many and widely varied, and that blanket statements like "casual sex leads to reduced capacity to establish meaningful relationships and bond to other people" are ignorant and demonstrative of armchair psychology. Not everyone thinks, feels, loves, or bonds the same way you or Taz or I do.
Want some more armchair psychology? I'm being perfectly respectful in this conversation and you are growing more agitated as time goes on. Sometimes (as in, NOT ALWAYS) people that become easily offended by remarks that don't involve them often lash out because subconsciously they agree to some degree, but don't want it to be so. So instead of having a calm conversion, they attack defensively as a self-defense mechanism.
How's that for armchair psychology?
Not bad, pseud-Freud. But as the real deal said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Or, perhaps you're simply not aware of all of the variables involved in my moods, and what may make me a somewhat "hostile" poster. Perhaps I'm offended at your baseless claims that people who engage in casual sex must suffer some consequence that for all objective purposes you seem to have completely made up. Perhaps I get irritable when a person paints an entire class of people as "abnormal" or not healthy" without any evidence to back up such claims. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Or maybe I just don't like your avatar - Vader looks much better in his normal black, thank you. Maybe all of the above...or something else entirely.
Insisting that I'm "lashing out" because I'm in denial over secretly agreeing with you sounds to me like a lot of overcomplicated horseshit, personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 3:00 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 106 of 158 (511898)
06-12-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 1:46 PM


Re: The irony of dichotomy
Ironically, people that do have lots of casual sex either long for love or flee from it, perhaps to mask some pain. Therein lies the dichotomy of the situation.
Here you go again, making things up as you go along and playing armchair phychologist.
I have love, and yet I and my partner engage in occasional casual sex. We have a stable, long-term relationship, healthy communication, and a bond that works on a much deeper level than whose penis went into whose vagina.
Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements about things you know nothing about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 109 of 158 (511909)
06-12-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 3:00 PM


Read my last post to Onifre and you will understand my position, which I freely admit is based on my own opinion, which was based on my own observations. But if it makes you feel any better, please find an empirical study conducted on monogamous versus polyamorous relationships in relation to emotional states. Somehow I don't see that being either readily available or ever conducted in the first place.
I've never heard of any such study, either - that's part of my reason for insisting you present one. Because without actual evidence, instead of mere anecdote, your claim of increased risk is baseless and invalid.
Everybody has an opinion, but not all opinions are well-founded. Yours happens to be an unfounded opinion with no demonstrable connection to reality...it seems more closely tied with your own personal credulity.
quote:
you're simply not aware of all of the variables involved in my moods, and what may make me a somewhat "hostile" poster. Perhaps I'm offended at your baseless claims that people who engage in casual sex must suffer some consequence
Must suffer??? I made it clear from my first post, and consistently up to now, that not everyone that engages in casual sex is going to be fucked up in the head or unloving. Never... Not even once. Your exaggerations are unnecessary character assassination.
"Must suffer," as in "must have an increased risk." As you also said, "there are always exceptions." You're still asserting that casual sex carries the consequence of increased risk of diminished ability to bond and feel love. That assertion has absolutely no basis in fact outside of your own personal opinion and anecdotes - meaning your opinion is just as valid as any other that is not grounded in objective fact: not at all.
I have engaged in casual sex. Hell I enjoyed it. And I would like to think that I'm in a stable monogamous relationship now and am capable of love. What I said before and what I will say again, is that people that consistently seek out casual sex are running a risk of becoming consumed by the prospect. I think they run the risk of objectifying. I think they run the risk of damaging any prospect of fostering a lasting and deep commitment in the future.
And why do you think that? I see no reason to think that at all. Since you're admitting that this is all simply your personal opinion and not any sort of reality based position, I'll accept your concession that the above is totally unfounded and there's no reason to take your words seriously.
There is a difference between someone who uses drugs and someone who is a drug addict. A drug user is not necessarily a drug addict. However, with prolonged use, that user runs a risk of becoming an addict. What precise cocktail or circumstances are necessary for someone to make the jump is probably invariable. It is probably a combination of genetics, upbringing, personal resolve, etc, etc.
Didn't you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges in your previous post? "Drugs" (assuming we're talking about nicotine, heroin, cocaine, etc) are physically addictive. Taking them even once in certain individuals can result in dependency.
Sex is not addictive in the same way. In fact, I would dare say that sex addiction tends to be a cause of casual sex, rather than casual sex being a cause of sex addiction. It's also true that one can become a sex addict without engaging in casual sex - there are sex addicts who are addicted primarily to pornography.
I just don't see how someone like, say, Jenna Jameson, has a wonderful relationship with Tito Ortiz. Maybe that's ignorant of me to say. I won't discount that.
Ah, personal incredulity, that wonderful revealer of truth and objective reality...
Oh, wait. What you personally find to be credulous or not is irrelevant without actual evidence. Many porn stars are married, you know. Do you have some sort of knowledge regarding the stability or health of their relationships that the rest of us are not privy to?
But I didn't assign the stigma, society did. And there is that whole thing about stereotypes. There is a reason why they exist, and the fact that somebody noticed them and characterized them is not entirely the fault of the one who noticed it. In fact, the one who exhibited the traits assigned it to themselves! Go figure...
Oh, it's society's fault! It looks like we could get into a long conversation about stereotypes, you and I, that would drift us far afield of this topic. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of stereotypes are the result of selection bias, not objective fact...and you still haven't supported your opinion with anything more than additional hot air. That works for balloons, but not arguments.
You realize that much of the stigma placed on so-called "abnormal" sexuality is due to the religious standards of the dominant religions of our culture, yes? That even the guilt and shame that some people feel about their sexuality is the result not of any real wrong they've done, but rather due to the standards placed by the same repressed fools who made laws like the one in Texas which, until just a few short years ago, made the sale of sex toys illegal?
Your opinions and incredulity at the possibility of a stable non-monogamous relationship (like Jenna Jameson's marriage for example) are very likely the result of the cultural legacy of the very Puritans you claimed no to support a bit ago.
quote:
Perhaps I get irritable when a person paints an entire class of people as "abnormal" or not healthy" without any evidence to back up such claims. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Or maybe I just don't like your avatar - Vader looks much better in his normal black, thank you. Maybe all of the above...or something else entirely.
Insisting that I'm "lashing out" because I'm in denial over secretly agreeing with you sounds to me like a lot of overcomplicated horseshit, personally.
Well, then, in keeping of the tone of what is or isn't normal... Normal people don't get as pissy as you did for literally no reason. Not only was I not talking to you, but my observations were meant to be fair, balanced, non-offensive and completely non-threatening. If you felt offended then I would suggest taking a deeper look in to your own mind to see why you reacted the way you did, because somehow I think it has less to do with me than it does you.
Whether you were directly addressing me or not is irrelevant. You made a claim that was personally offensive to me - clearly I do have a reason to be rather annoyed. Further, you're refused to support your asinine opinion with any shred of objective fact, continuing instead to repeat your unsupported position along with a defense of stereotyping.
The fact is, I couldn't care less about how I come across on an internet debate board. Part of my acidity comes from the fact that I tend to consider my opponents emotional well-being to be irrelevant to the argument, which should instead should be concerned with logic and evidence. I'm basically treating you the exact same way that I treat Creationists who use the same tactics of refusing to produce evidence in support of their position and arguing via repetition of their personal beliefs with no attention paid to logic or refutation. That style of debate is extremely annoying, and combined with the fact that your claim is directly offensive to me, it makes me understandably irritated.
Now, since you've admitted that all of this is nothing more than your own opinion founded not on objective evidence but rather on personal anecdote, credulity, and stereotype, I'll accept your concession that there is no reason to believe that casual sex risks impeding future relationships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 3:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Nuggin, posted 06-12-2009 5:44 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 5:49 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 10:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 112 of 158 (511916)
06-12-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
06-12-2009 5:49 PM


And he leaves out mari-jane because it is not a drug or addictive - Oni happy now with Rahvin.
I'd accept calling it a "drug," (caffeine is a drug - that word isn't all that meaningful) but it doesn't form chemical dependency, so "addictive" is misleading.
Did you hear Schwarzenegger supports legalization? I still don't think it's happening quite yet, but it's getting closer. Helped when the Republicans saw how much tax revenue they were missing out on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 5:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:23 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 116 by Nuggin, posted 06-12-2009 8:44 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 114 of 158 (511922)
06-12-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by onifre
06-12-2009 7:23 PM


*gets on soapbox*
Drugs: heroin, crack-cocaine, cocaine, crystal meth, tylenol, prozac, viagra, etc.
Plants, belonging to the kingdom Plantae: cannabis, coca, ferns, moss, etc.
Ah, the Kat Williams approach -
"Drugs are things you need to do shit to. Weed ain't a drug - it just grow that way. And if you should happen to light it on fire, there may be some...effects!"
So then, shrooms are also not a drug, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024