Fetish being your sexuality?

[Owen Robertson]

Oh. You didn't. You seriously didn't. Please, for the love of god, tell me this isn't a serious post, that this is just some strange attempt at humor by equating someone finding something offensive and advising people on how to not be offensive to Censorship. Please tell me you aren't taking advice to make people look less like dick-whistles (something that is completely optional), and equating it to something that is forced onto people by more powerful others?
'Cause if you are serious, then... well... I'm gonna be in the corner, weeping over the fact that people have forgotten that Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to Say Anything and not be Seen as a Dick-whistle.

I dislike when people make the logic jump of Free Speech to consequence-free speech, because then I feel obligated to explain. You already have, in your own way, but I'd like to assist.

Don't shed another's blood unless you're prepared to shed your own, OR, don't talk if you don't want to hear something back.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

My point being is that no one should listen to you, because I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives. Your feelings are not my concern, and they are no one's concern but your own.

Well, no, this person's feelings ARE my concern. As everyone's feelings are my concern. Not to the extent that it controls my life, but recognizing fellow human beings have emotions and showing empathy towards them is something you're meant to have learned by the age of five. It's part of being a social animal.

I honestly have no idea where this attitude you're expressing comes from, but I see it a lot, especially in video gaming communities populated largely by young men. I suspect it comes from a desire to appear "hard", or it could just be that people want to rationalize being assholes. Or maybe they read a story about a guy who had to suffer through some truly ridiculous PC nonsense as a child, and it left an impression on them, so now they think they're fighting the good fight by being willfully aggressive and pushing people's buttons. Trolling as a form of social activism. I could share what I think about that, but I'd probably get a lifetime supply of infractions.

It's one thing to argue that a word like normal has multiple definitions and multiple interpretations, that you meant no harm by it, and that people should hesitate before jumping to conclusions about intent. It's quite another thing to take this "Lololol no one should care about ur feelings mate" position.

Please name a few and show why they apply to this conversation in the context it was used.

Surely you appreciate what the implication of the word "normal" is, yes? And that the counterpart to that word is abnormal? And why anyone of any minority group...be it racial, sexual, or whatever you please...might be sensitive to the implication that they are abnormal? You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so pretending you're absolutely blinkered as to how a word like this can be used in a prejudicial fashion strikes me as profoundly disingenuous.

That's why I invoked censorship.

I'm not really assed about why you invoked censorship, it was a bankrupt analogue. You might as well just go straight for Godwin's Law if you care that little about making a functional analogy.

I agree with Bara that we should all be nice to each other, but the level he's talking about is totalitarian.

Actually, he is not exercising any control over your freedom, will, or thoughts. He's imploring you to think before you speak. At worst you could charge him with being over-sensitive, but to be honest the degree of sensitivity to slight one has is affected by a multitude of factors, many of which are ENTIRELY outside of that person's control, so whining about it is sort of pointless. If you find him too sensitive for your liking, you can just avoid him. If he starts following you around and actively prevents you from speaking somehow, then you can start using words like "totalitarian" without it provoking epic eye-rolls. Even then it's a bit of a stretch though, as the word was originally coined to mean oppression by the state, not nagging by an individual.

It's quelling the freedom to express one's self naturally, all for the sake of a few that could read into it deeper than what was intended.

No, it's not. Evidence being here you are, expressing yourself "naturally".

It's all part of the new-wave PC agenda...

Oh yes, that DREADFUL PC agenda that's sweeping the internet. Who will save us?

Doesn't Freud say that sexuality is a combination of availability and preference?

He might have. I was under the impression we stopped taking Freud seriously a long time ago though.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Doesn't Freud say that sexuality is a combination of availability and preference?

He might have. I was under the impression we stopped taking Freud seriously a long time ago though.

The majority of his work has been discredited, this is true, but that does not mean the above theory is completely without merit, does it?
Isaac Newton was a mathematical genius... and he also predicted the end of the world in 2060 via The Bible. Does that discredit his math?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The majority of his work has been discredited, this is true, but that does not mean the above theory is completely without merit, does it?

Isaac Newton was a mathematical genius... and he also predicted the end of the world in 2060 via The Bible. Does that discredit his math?

Well if you're a psychologist, and much if not all of your input on the field is discredited, it kind of casts whatever is left in a dim light. It doesn't mean I'll throw out his souffle recipe, but it does mean I'm going to be hesitant to jump on the bandwagon for any psychological theories he might espouse. I think that's fair.

A better analogy would be if Newton was terrible at math, and he also made some mathematical formulas, and does the fact he's terrible at math mean his math gets discredited. In which case I think the answer is obviously "yes".

In case you think I'm some kind of Freud hater, though, I will admit the man had an amazing beard.

 

[Owen Robertson]

A better analogy would be if Newton was terrible at math, and he also made some mathematical formulas, and does the fact he's terrible at math mean his math gets discredited. In which case I think the answer is obviously "yes".

In case you think I'm some kind of Freud hater, though, I will admit the man had an amazing beard.

...I liked it my way better. I thought I was right.

Seriously though, I suppose I was comparing apples and oranges. I've got to get better at this whole "debate" thing. Also you're right. He had a bitchin' beard.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

...I liked it my way better. I thought I was right.

Seriously though, I suppose I was comparing apples and oranges. I've got to get better at this whole "debate" thing. Also you're right. He had a bitchin' beard.

You actually might have something though. According to the trustworthiness of beards chart, we should believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/trustworthiness-of-beardsmusta.php

 

[Neksar]

I had a weird fetish where I could only get off with my girlfriend if she was actually enjoying the sex.

Okay, it's not technically a fetish, nor arguably a bad thing, but the latter part of that last statement is actually truthful.

 

[Signa]

My point being is that no one should listen to you, because I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives. Your feelings are not my concern, and they are no one's concern but your own.

Well, no, this person's feelings ARE my concern. As everyone's feelings are my concern. Not to the extent that it controls my life, but recognizing fellow human beings have emotions and showing empathy towards them is something you're meant to have learned by the age of five. It's part of being a social animal.

Bolded the important part. This is what I'm trying to say. I feel like when I'm scolded, or see others scolded for using inconsiderate language, it's trying to control that person's life. I certainly don't go around trying to hurt others' feelings, but that's why I get offended when others are offended. I didn't mean to hurt anyone, yet I'm some sort of bigoted, intolerant scum for not thinking about harmony for everyone. It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the **** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female. That kind of thing is actually moving society backwards, not forwards to utopian harmony.

I honestly have no idea where this attitude you're expressing comes from, but I see it a lot, especially in video gaming communities populated largely by young men. I suspect it comes from a desire to appear "hard", or it could just be that people want to rationalize being assholes. Or maybe they read a story about a guy who had to suffer through some truly ridiculous PC nonsense as a child, and it left an impression on them, so now they think they're fighting the good fight by being willfully aggressive and pushing people's buttons. Trolling as a form of social activism. I could share what I think about that, but I'd probably get a lifetime supply of infractions.

It's one thing to argue that a word like normal has multiple definitions and multiple interpretations, that you meant no harm by it, and that people should hesitate before jumping to conclusions about intent. It's quite another thing to take this "Lololol no one should care about ur feelings mate" position.

I'm hard because I'm trying to be realistic. I know no matter what I do, no matter how considerate I try to be, someone is going to take offense to something I said. To that, I've decided to say "fuck 'em." I've realized it's not my job to take care of others' feelings because it's just not possible. It's their job to learn how to not take offense to things. They are the ones that are unhappy, so it's their job to fix it, and not by telling others to stop living their lives. I don't know what has to happen in someone's life to consider holding a door a rude gesture, but it somehow has happened. I'm not going to protect those people by not holding doors for other people, and in the case of this thread, I'm not going to hold back my form of language if it means getting too verbose to say the exact same thing a normal word will suffice for.

Also, if you want to discuss this part privately, in a safe haven, feel free to PM me about your feelings[footnote]speaking of censorship...[/footnote].

Please name a few and show why they apply to this conversation in the context it was used.

Surely you appreciate what the implication of the word "normal" is, yes? And that the counterpart to that word is abnormal? And why anyone of any minority group...be it racial, sexual, or whatever you please...might be sensitive to the implication that they are abnormal? You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so pretending you're absolutely blinkered as to how a word like this can be used in a prejudicial fashion strikes me as profoundly disingenuous.

I can't help but feel this doesn't answer my question. We've already covered that no one thinks that being "abnormal" is a bad thing in this case. To even feel one has been called something they don't think is fair, you have to read the antonyms for the words that were used. I'm not callous enough to fail to understand why some will take issue with that, but those that do never bother to look at how language even works. What's another synonym for normal? Average? Basic? Neither of those properly describe the sex that was being discussed, and yet their antonyms still could be "abnormal." Basically, what I'm trying to say is taking the opposite of a word doesn't always mean it's the right word for the context. Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

That's why I invoked censorship.

I'm not really assed about why you invoked censorship, it was a bankrupt analogue. You might as well just go straight for Godwin's Law if you care that little about making a functional analogy.

So come up with one for me. What is it called when someone thinks you shouldn't be allowed to say something and then starts a movement to prohibit that speech? I know Bara isn't the head of that movement, but he is buying into its goals.

I agree with Bara that we should all be nice to each other, but the level he's talking about is totalitarian.

Actually, he is not exercising any control over your freedom, will, or thoughts. He's imploring you to think before you speak. At worst you could charge him with being over-sensitive, but to be honest the degree of sensitivity to slight one has is affected by a multitude of factors, many of which are ENTIRELY outside of that person's control, so whining about it is sort of pointless. If you find him too sensitive for your liking, you can just avoid him. If he starts following you around and actively prevents you from speaking somehow, then you can start using words like "totalitarian" without it provoking epic eye-rolls. Even then it's a bit of a stretch though, as the word was originally coined to mean oppression by the state, not nagging by an individual.

Yeah, so maybe it's hyperbole, but this is the internet, it doesn't get much more pointless and hyperbolic than this. It's not like he didn't engage in his own hyperbole by saying that aba1 was being offensive to all gays.

It's quelling the freedom to express one's self naturally, all for the sake of a few that could read into it deeper than what was intended.

No, it's not. Evidence being here you are, expressing yourself "naturally".

But if he had it his own way as master of the universe, I wouldn't be allowed to speak out. Censorship may have been hyperbolic, but it still was the form his wishes took. Just because I can speak now doesn't mean he wouldn't try to stop me if he could do something about it.

It's all part of the new-wave PC agenda...

Oh yes, that DREADFUL PC agenda that's sweeping the internet. Who will save us?

Why me of course! But seriously, I live in Seattle, and I get my fill of these sentiments just from the culture around me. No one will listen to me in real life, so at least I get a podium on the internet to voice my disdain and irritation.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the ****** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female.

Dude =(

I know no matter what I do, no matter how considerate I try to be, someone is going to take offense to something I said.

That's certainly possible, but someone taking offense to something you've said doesn't dramatically alter your life. You can validate someone's feelings, and alter your speech depending on the company you're in, without being a "victim of censorship". I have a lot of friends who, through varied life experiences, have developed certain sensitivities. I make a small effort to be sensitive to that in their company, to avoid causing them unnecessary distress. That kind of cultural/interpersonal sensitivity is NOT DIFFICULT to cultivate. I simply can't endorse an "I'm gonna say what I want to say when I want to say it and fuck em if they don't like it" perspective on life, because I don't know what we're meant to gain from it.

I don't know what has to happen in someone's life to consider holding a door a rude gesture, but it somehow has happened.

Well, I imagine centuries of having your gender treated like invalids might have something to do with it, but I'm not a woman so I can't claim to have any real insight. I'm not a big fan of ripping someone's head off for an attempted kind gesture either, but I've been around almost 40 years now and I've held thousands and thousands of doors open for thousands and thousands of people, and the worst reaction I ever got was indifference. I really don't think this is an epidemic.

Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

There is an ongoing battle for homosexuals, most particularly in your country, against the label of deviancy. If you paint people as abnormal or "other" it makes it much, much easier to demonize and attack them. This is fundamental to human psychology, we love to nominate a "deviant" group and project fears and insecurities onto them. In the case of homosexuals, their status as "abnormal" has has a hand in everything from being denied basic civil rights, to being dragged behind pickup trucks. Language has power. We can have a very dry academic discussion about how they are "deviant" insomuch as they are a minority population that deviates from the mean, but the word "deviant" has a very, very different connotation when you release it into the wilds. There's a lot of god fearin' folk out there who mean something dramatically different than you when they talk about how "normal" homosexuals aren't, and I'm pretty sympathetic towards their sensitivity on that issue.

What is it called when someone thinks you shouldn't be allowed to say something and then starts a movement to prohibit that speech? I know Bara isn't the head of that movement, but he is buying into its goals.

There's a world of difference between "shouldn't be allowed" and "shouldn't". You shouldn't cheat. You are allowed to cheat. You shouldn't eat food that is bad for you. You are allowed to eat food that is bad for you. You shouldn't say insensitive things that might inflame and/or promote bigotry. You are allowed to say insensitive things that might inflame or promote bigotry. World of difference. I also wouldn't characterize a complaint on a message board as a "movement". We're not fomenting any revolutions in here.

Yeah, so maybe it's hyperbole, but this is the internet, it doesn't get much more pointless and hyperbolic than this. It's not like he didn't engage in his own hyperbole by saying that aba1 was being offensive to all gays.

Hyperbolic statements don't cancel each other out. By meeting hyperbole with hyperbole you are encouraging attitude polarization, which means you deserve to be beaten with a trout. It's not like we don't have enough trouble with that on these forums already.

Why me of course! But seriously, I live in Seattle, and I get my fill of these sentiments just from the culture around me. No one will listen to me in real life, so at least I get a podium on the internet to voice my disdain and irritation.

And that's fine, but we can frame a "has the world become too politically correct" discussion without attacking someone for being uppity about their feelings, yeah? Surely you want to convince people of your perspective and convert followers to your cause, not create a bunch of enemies? Isn't that why people seek out podiums?

I know arguing on the internet can be terribly bracing...we all get to practice our wittiest turns of phrase on one another for an audience of 20 people, 19 of whom are only checking to see if someone has quoted them or looking for a controversial topic to flame...but at the end of the day it's about as productive as chasing a weasel around a mulberry bush, innit?

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm into being dominated. How much? Well, let me put it this way: I don't have a girlfriend anymore, and that's not due to any forgotten birthdays.

 

[Signa]

It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the ****** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female.

Dude =(

sorry, but you're a **** if you get mad at someone for doing a harmless favor for them. Just as my roommate is a **** for getting mad at me for putting his laundry in the dryer for him because he was raiding in WoW. If there was actually some harm caused by either of those favors, then there's a right to be mad. Being so self absorbed in your own importance that no one is able to help you out makes you the worst kind of person. Those four letters express that in the most concise way possible. You know how I feel about them. I don't think you'd think much of Bara if he suddenly flipped shit at you for taking up his argument for him. **** may not be the word of choice for you, but it would be for me.

Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

There is an ongoing battle for homosexuals, most particularly in your country, against the label of deviancy. If you paint people as abnormal or "other" it makes it much, much easier to demonize and attack them. This is fundamental to human psychology, we love to nominate a "deviant" group and project fears and insecurities onto them. In the case of homosexuals, their status as "abnormal" has has a hand in everything from being denied basic civil rights, to being dragged behind pickup trucks. Language has power. We can have a very dry academic discussion about how they are "deviant" insomuch as they are a minority population that deviates from the mean, but the word "deviant" has a very, very different connotation when you release it into the wilds. There's a lot of god fearin' folk out there who mean something dramatically different than you when they talk about how "normal" homosexuals aren't, and I'm pretty sympathetic towards their sensitivity on that issue.

Change religious folk to PC crowd, and you see my rage at this topic. People, no matter their beliefs, love to demonize one another. Sometimes it's God, sometimes it's being intolerant of intolerance. Both are trying for their vision of a happy society, and both are missing very important parts of the bigger picture: the human factor. Is my vision any better? Probably not, but it at least embraces the human factor and lets people be people, instead of hamfistedly trying to crush anyone who uses a stereotype, generalization, double entendre, or makes a funny expression at a time they disagree with [footnote]insert arguments about rape jokes[/footnote].

I need to wrap this up, but I had one point I wanted to work in somewhere that I never found the place. People love negativity in our language. Gay, fag, queer, retard, dumb, stupid are all words off the top of my head that have changed meaning significantly over the last 100 years or so. The first 3 are considered homophobic by the PC crowd, but people call their best friends those names to haze them. Southpark made an episode about fags, and how it really doesn't have anything to do with slurring gays anymore. The other 3 are words that used to refer to someone who the PC crowd now calls "specially able." As criminally insensitive as it could seem to call a handicapped person a retard, the fact is the word retard means slowed, and it was used on the handicapped at one point because dumb was getting subverted to mean something negative. My point in all this is that no matter what you do, words that are kind now will just get corrupted over time the more they get used. This isn't always for the worse, because neutering the impact of "fag" is certainly a win for gays. Putting "normal" in this vilified category is just a fool's errand.

 

[likalaruku]

This is like super sad, but hentai is a turn-on, but real porn bores the snot out of me. I guess it's because hentai is as unrealistic as possible: Super taboo, super unrealistic body proportions, dumber plot, stupider characters, shit that would be illegal in real life. It's a freak circus spectacle that grabs your attention span by the throat. As a woman, I should be heavily offended by this shit, they talk too much & the women have annoying voices & rock bottom IQs, but I feel compelled to watch it for a week every month. I'm pissed that I can't find any dominatrix hentai though' at least not any where the the woman is still a dominatrix at the end of the OAV.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives.

This isn't about my feelings. It's about a perception within society that needs to end. I have educated a few people in this thread and hopefully changed a couple of minds. Those are a few small steps towards a better world.

I don't want you to be concerned about my feelings - I want you to realize that words have meaning and that certain perceptions of groups can harm that group.

Also, you seemed to be missing my point. There's nothing wrong with calling hetero sex normal - it's just that homosexual sex is also normal.

If something is abnormal, then people will try to fix it, or will not accommodate it. Not everyone, but if that is the social perception, then people can get away with it. This normal/abnormal view is why people think they can make gay marriage illegal when the right of gay people to get married is protected by the Constitution.

Finally, I said your post was irrelevant because I'm not censoring anything. First off, I'm not in charge of the Escapist. Secondly, even if I were, and even if I used the Ban Hammer, that still isn't censorship - the Escapist is a private website and has the rights to do whatever they want. They can Ban people for using whatever words they want (such as the T-Word).

What I am doing is asking people to consider their words and understand why these outdated perceptions are harmful.

Your feelings are not my concern,

That's interesting, when one of the Escapist Forum policies is "Be Considerate of Others". Be considerate, as in to be concerned about the feelings of others.

If you want to stamp out intolerance, start with those that actually are being hateful towards others, not people that accidentally use a benign phrase that could mean two different things when they only meant one of them.

Except that "benign" intolerance is the one kind that I can actually fix. If aba1 actually hated gay people, then all my yelling wouldn't result in anything. But he doesn't - he used a term carelessly because he didn't know any better. So I told him it was offensive, and I told him why, and several of my friends explained it further - and it worked, he understood the issue. We reasoned with him, and changed his mind - we showed him that his attitude was hurtful, even if he didn't mean it that way. And, because he's a good guy, he changed his behavior.

How is that not the most worthwhile way to end intolerance?

You still have not responded to my last comment as to why I'm wrong about gay sex being -/+ weird, or the accusation that your only interest in here is to be called normal.

Why didn't I explain why? I believe I pointed to another person's post and said "this - right here - what he said" because that person (sorry, can't remember his name - see page 2 of the thread) nailed it. He said what I was trying to, but better, and with quotes.

As for your 'accusation' - um, what? Yes, my 'only interest here' is for people to understand that being gay is normal. When have I said otherwise? When have I argued anything else?

Or... are you trying to imply that I - myself - want to be considered normal, rather than gay people in general? Because I have posted the exact opposite of that in this thread. I talked about ALSO being into BDSM, and that such a fetish makes me weird (in a good way).

I mentioned it when I was explaining that being weird or strange in general isn't a problem, but that considering all gay people to be "abnormal" (not weird, abnormal, as in mutated or faulty) is insulting. It's the generalization that's insulting - all gay people aren't anything, because you can't assume that all seven hundred million (or more) of us are the same worldwide.

If you're not actually interested in this discussion, then just bow out, I won't think less of you, but the way you're acting tells me that you're not happy with the way the thread has gone, and with or without a valid argument, you won't let it go.

Ah, but I am. Like I said, the conversation with aba1 went well - it took some time, but he got it, and I think we changed his mind with reason and appeal.

I'm not sure why you think this thread hasn't gone well for me. I got exactly what I wanted, and I'm happy. Aba1 is a cool guy, and now he understands why his comment could be seen - and was seen - as offensive by some.

I'm only replying because you seem to want to keep it going, and still seem to be missing some main points. Also because your comment that I was censoring people is absurd since I don't have anything like that kind of power, and I felt the need to call you on it - as did Shanicus I see, with that lovely Picard face-palm.

But yeah, we can stop anytime. I got my victory on page 2 of the thread. I'm good.

Edited for some typos. Long post is long.

 

[Jsbwalker]

Let's take a look at the use of the words 'Normal' and 'Abnormal' in a societal and psychological level to try to shut this argument of semantics down.

Abnormal is almost NEVER used as a positive thing in human society. The only thing I can think of that might make it positive is when people use it ironically by saying "Look at how abnormal and unique I am! Will you like me now because I did enough weird things to fit in with you guys?" And even then people won't use 'Abnormal' and will instead use synonyms with more positive connotations like 'unique' and 'special'.

All a person ever knows is what being themselves is like, and the factors that make up you are shared with other people. You feel degraded when somebody degrades someone of your group and elevated when your group degrades another because you are like your group. Their successes and failures affirm your traits and make you feel proud to be apart of them. Because your self worth is tied up with the status of your respective groups compared to the other groups, and deep down you feel that your group is the best one, you need a mechanism to dehumanize and in a simple way rationalize your hatred towards another group, other than it makes you feel superior and necessary. For this task you employ the use of the word 'abnormal'. They do this so that they can more easily open them up to ridicule and punishment. Describing someone as abnormal is the perfect way to dehumanize someone without going through the effort of coming up with a suitable slur to do it in a more elegant way. It's also just a benign enough term to squeak past the obligatory barrage of "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU USED *Insert exclusionary slur here* TO DESCRIBE THAT PERSON!" and get your point across.

While I must admit that the person who originally used the word to describe homosexual people probably didn't do so maliciously, And I am going into the most spiteful usage of the word here. But given the history, and popular use of the word and it's sisters as ways to dehumanize and exclude other human beings, and elevate your status, you should begin to appreciate it's profound negative power, It's not just the god fearing fundamentalist religious factions that use it either. I don't think you could say that you've never dismissed a person from your close circle of friends because they were too weird for you.

Calling a homosexual person abnormal, or unnatural is incredibly insulting in many contexts, and arguably in all contexts as it can mean that they are too different to fraternize with the likes of you, that they exist on the fringes of society and that you are better than them.

So yes, whether or not you describe a person's sexuality as normal or abnormal can have enormously negative or positive meanings. Surely you can appreciate that it doesn't feel nice to have someone tell you that you're abnormal. Normality is often used as an indication of humanity, and to take that away, to say that this person isn't like you, is one of the most powerful insults of all.

 

[aba1]

You guys are all still going on about this lmao. Your all just being way to sensitive whether abnormal has negative implications is completely subjective and you really can't imply things through text because implying requires tone which text does not have this is the same reason sarcasm doesn't work. Honestly someone saw something remotely questionable and just looked for a excuse to get upset. People were just looking to make me out to be this stereotype bigot without knowing a thing about me.

I generally come here for rational conversation where people try to be impartial or unbiased but if people are going to fly off the handle the second someone questions anything remotely personal I will just lay off coming here for a while. If I wanted to talk to people who get offended over anything remotely questionable I would go to youtube.

Honestly this is sorta thinking is the reason some people still don't believe in evolution or people believed the world was flat for so long. The second you question things, people get there back up rather than just considering what the person said or even just asking about it and taking a interest in another point of view.

All I asked was to be talked to with respect and dignity and I would reciprocate. When people said they thought I was giving a negative implication I made it clear that was not the case but I guess that is not good enough.

Now once n for all I am out sorry for continuing this with this last post.

 

[Signa]

Snip Too Soon?

Good, I was starting to feel a little crazy.

I must have a discussion fetish, because I feel exhausted in a satisfying way, like how I imagine the morning after a night of rampant sex would feel. In all seriousness though, discussion can be quite invigorating for me, and this was a worthy challenge.

You may or may not want to fix the quotes. The message I received was different than the one in the thread, and now it doesn't even reflect me as who you should have quoted.

 

[Keltrick]

It is true that by the actual definition you need a physical object for it to be a fetish but their are tons of things people call fetishes out there that are not based around physical objects. Fat, Giant, Necro, Spanking etc. What would you label these as?

I would probably use a more generalized term such as "kink".

I am aware that fetish is often colloquially abused to encompass things that do not quite fit its literal definition, but I'd hesitate to try and stretch it so far as to apply it to homosexuality. One, because I think it's a gross misuse of the word, and two because it would set off an absolute shit-storm to collate sexual identity with a sexual peccadillo like "I'm really into balloons".

I agree actually mind you that is why I said "could argue" and "essentially" I was more trying to say it is debatable not necessarily true. I generally associate the word kink and fetish but it is a good point they are different well said. I wouldn't call it a gross misuse but I do know some people will freak out at the comparison. This is what the thread is all about though kinks go beyond simple wooo I like this and they do in fact make up a large if not entire part of peoples sexuality just the same as being gay does. Even that being said being gay doesn't mean your exclusively into the same gender there are lots of bi people out there too. This is without getting into the whole kinsey scale.

Either way if you don't think of it that way that is cool but keep in mind many peoples fetishes or kinks are/can be just as big a part of their sexuality as any gay persons sexual preferences.

I'm sorry, Im just terribly confused as to why we're focusing on homosexuality? Yes, its a 'big part of their sexual preference' but that it IS a gross misuse of the word. If it's applied to orientation then anything and everything you are into is labeled as a fetish, including a straight person's attraction to the opposite sex. I have straight male friends. I think saying that he is attracted to women, isn't something I can deem a fetish. If I tried to stretch the word to encompass that, it would rip in two.

Fetishes ARE a part of who you are, and if you have one, I am fully aware it probably means the world to you. You found something and it may very well be intense enough you HAVE to have it and thus it defines a part of your sexuality. That being said, orientation is in a different boat. Unless every straight man or lesbian woman has a 'woman fetish' and straight women and gay men have a 'man fetish' then we're not using the word as you describe. If we do use this expanded definition, then fetish suddenly has lost its intended meaning as a word. We don't call every man who likes breasts a 'breast fetishist" because that would be ridiculous. Why on earth would we expand it to cover EVERY aspect of the female or male body? How can 'attracted to men' be a fetish?

 

[Keltrick]

It is fine if you disagree with me I mean please feel free to. However if your going to call me wrong I just ask you provide some insight. Your not exactly convincing saying essentially "your wrong so shut up". I tend to think of kinks or fetishes as the sexual attraction to anything outside the norm (aka Vanilla sex).

So please take a seat I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts please feel free to change my mind all I ask is you don't be rude or insulting.

I bolded the part where you are insulting the entire gay community.

This whole "you aren't normal" attitude is unhealthy, insulting, and homophobic. We are normal - saying we're outside the norm is not acceptable.

Being in the minority doesn't make a person abnormal.

I don't see what is worth getting butthurt over that statement. Hell, for the sake of this discussion, I'd take up his argument. I mean, if furries are considered a fetish, then how are gays different?

Because we tend to view Homosexual attraction and Heterosexual attraction as essentially the same thing. The thought behind those "I don't see the difference" ads. Its all fine and well to have a furry fetish, but it's not the same thing as a sexual orientation. Being attracted to men/women is simple, easy to define. You are attracted to men/women. Gay people are also JUST attracted to men/women. Its the same thing. The term fetish traditionally comes about when you have to do a fair bit more defining and explaining than that. Straights would have to be considered 'part of a straight fetish' for this to be applicable.

Its not being butthurt,its being let down that a community has misguided (and in ways, insensitive) views that touch on things that are deeply entwined with a person's identity. That statement implies that gay attraction is not normal, just as was stated, and that's a view that should not be supported.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Knee-socks and stockings.

>.>

This is what happens when you watch too much anime and play too many Japanese video games. You develop really annoying fetishes.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

Knee-socks and stockings.

>.>

This is what happens when you watch too much anime and play too many Japanese video games. You develop really annoying fetishes.

So long as you don't get a fetish for tentacles and large weapons, you'll be fine