Sphinxter said: No you've just deluded yourself you're "straight" because you cannot exist outside of arbitrary boxes and social identities your culture has made up for you that don't exist. jal90 said: No I answered it exactly; you claim that "straight" has been celebrated by society for 'thousands of years' I claim that 'straight' didn't exist before 1886 when it was invented by psychiatrics so how can it have been celebrated?Thanks for the three short paragraphs of absolutely irrelevant paranoid woke shit that didn't answer my core question here I guess. Celebrated as in taken as the sociocultural norm, and yes, building an entire set of ideological constructs around them that are pretty much taken as dogmatic and indisputable. "I claim that straight didn't exist before 1886" yeah and homosexual intercourse or relationships haven't been a punishable crime for literal thousands of years in Western societies, and they aren't right now in a number of places around the world. I don't know who are you trying to fool or impress with your Very Woke Opinions on psychiatrists, like psychiatrists ever invented that people who are attracted to their same gender exist. It only shows your childish disrespect towards a group of professionals/academics. |
| I wish I could come but I'm lazy. I always wanted to parade like a clown in the middle of other clowns. |
Orhunaa said: RobertBobert said: Given the realities of the modern Western world, I could argue about discrimination of straight for their sexuality, lol. But the straight parade theme itself is already fat enough not to make it even hotter. Do tell me when straight people are executed/incarcarated/beaten up/raped because they wanted to have relationships. Surely you do not equate a college student speaking to you in a rude manner with what LGBT people have to go through in many parts of the world. Is physical violence the only existing form of discrimination? Or do you intentionally raise the bar so high that you can cut off any of my arguments? In this case, this is a very good example of the “pushing the gate” tactic. |
 |
jal90 said: How does that mean that "straight" existed? Before psychiatrists came up with this weird label of "homosexual" the widespread belief was that every human being was "bisexual". That it was a crime to act on homoerotic urges doesn't change that the widespread belief was that it was natural for every human being to feel them; one was just supposed to not act on them.Sphinxter said: No you've just deluded yourself you're "straight" because you cannot exist outside of arbitrary boxes and social identities your culture has made up for you that don't exist. No I answered it exactly; you claim that "straight" has been celebrated by society for 'thousands of years' I claim that 'straight' didn't exist before 1886 when it was invented by psychiatrics so how can it have been celebrated? Celebrated as in taken as the sociocultural norm, and yes, building an entire set of ideological constructs around them that are pretty much taken as dogmatic and indisputable. "I claim that straight didn't exist before 1886" yeah and homosexual intercourse or relationships haven't been a punishable crime for literal thousands of years in Western societies, and they aren't right now in a number of places around the world. I don't know who are you trying to fool or impress with your Very Woke Opinions on psychiatrists, like psychiatrists ever invented that people who are attracted to their same gender exist. It only shows your childish disrespect towards a group of professionals/academics. I never said that; I said they invented "straight" and all the other sexuality labels.Before psychiatrists tried to medicalize morality as they so often do every man was "bisexual" in the public eye. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
RobertBobert said: Orhunaa said: Do tell me when straight people are executed/incarcarated/beaten up/raped because they wanted to have relationships. Surely you do not equate a college student speaking to you in a rude manner with what LGBT people have to go through in many parts of the world. Is physical violence the only existing form of discrimination? Or do you intentionally raise the bar so high that you can cut off any of my arguments? In this case, this is a very good example of the “pushing the gate” tactic. No, but there is a thing called difference in degree which in this case is so great I can't see your "But straight people get discriminated too!" as anything but refusal to adress the real problems. |
 |
| There is nothing morally wrong with a straight pride parade, but its just as pointless as the gay pride parades now. LGBT parades might have had meaning before wide spread acceptance, but nowadays even mega corporations are backing the culture and its not daring or revolutionary to show support for the cause. People march in these things to take selfies and get positive comments like "OMG, so brave" to feel good about themselves. I don't know who would actually take time off work to march in any kind of sexual-orientation parade, it all seems so trivial. The only parade I would march in would be a Lolicon pride parade since lolicons are still misunderstood and oppressed. |
 |
Nick-Knight said: They are obviously free to spend their own money to throw a party however they wish and I am free to criticize their pride in non-achievements all the same.Ah so that's why there's a rule against discussing sexual oriention. (this is not directed towards anyone in particular btw). All I have to say is that you should take pride in achievements and merits and not something like race or in this case sexual orientation. Also I would like that they didn't use public money for parades or anything related to that. There are more important stuff that matter such as education, health and security. NK out. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| @Sphinxter religions like islam and christianity existed way before 1886 anyway and we know that religion is the original pro discrimination group with sexism against women and LGBT and this same holy books preaches gender roles/responsibility/hierarchy too like the husband/male should be the head and the final decision maker of the family |
| Straight pride happens everyday when a couple gets married, when a bf and gf kiss in public, I do not feel that it is necessary. Its good to be proud of your sexuality, but the obvious intent of having a parade has some reference to the Gay pride one. |
 |
deg said: What do Abrahamic religions have to do with "sexual orientations"?@Sphinxter religions like islam and christianity existed way before 1886 anyway and we know that religion is the original pro discrimination group with sexism against women and LGBT and this same holy books preaches gender roles/responsibility/hierarchy too like the husband/male should be the head and the final decision makers of the family None of these religions even speak of sexual orientations and their holy books are clearly written from the perspective that at its core all men are 'bisexual". None of these religions and their holy books seem to think or imply that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" persons exist. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: deg said: What do Abrahamic religions have to do with "sexual orientations"?@Sphinxter religions like islam and christianity existed way before 1886 anyway and we know that religion is the original pro discrimination group with sexism against women and LGBT and this same holy books preaches gender roles/responsibility/hierarchy too like the husband/male should be the head and the final decision makers of the family None of these religions even speak of sexual orientations and their holy books are clearly written from the perspective that at its core all men are 'bisexual". None of these religions and their holy books seem to think or imply that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" persons exist. there are clear words of "men" and "women" in the bible though and their roles/responsibility and even limits like do not do gay stuff or is it just a mistranslation? |
deg said: Yeah so? How does that imply that the bible seems to think that heterosexual and homosexual humans exist?Sphinxter said: What do Abrahamic religions have to do with "sexual orientations"? None of these religions even speak of sexual orientations and their holy books are clearly written from the perspective that at its core all men are 'bisexual". None of these religions and their holy books seem to think or imply that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" persons exist. there are clear words of "men" and "women" in the bible though and their roles/responsibility and even limits like do not do gay stuff or is it just a mistranslation? At no point does the bible at any point say that supposedly human beings can be divided into "heterosexual", "bisexual" and "homosexual" where "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" are supposedly incapable of feeling love or lust for a specific sex. I'm not sure how the Bible condemning homoerotic acts would at all imply that it seems to believe human beings exist that are supposedly incapable of feeling homoeroetic desires. It seems to very much imply that this desire lies at the capacity of any man. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Lux_Lucis said: I'd attend that. I mean it's a great opportunity to show off my slave girls. You always see these gay men walking around with other men, dressed like dogs, in every gay parade. Soon I'll have the opportunity to do that with my girls and actually be appropriate! Yay for political correctness and equality :> Tfw no longer having to send my works in pm and in closed channels... The world is going in the right direction. Can you get some of your slave girls to buy my faceless nudes for modest money? That'll be great, thanks. |
| Hmmm, seems like something out of The Onion. *Does cursory internet search* Oh, well err, I guess it is a thing. But I pride myself in being open-minded so I'll hear what they have to say... "The City of Boston rejected Super Happy Fun America's application to raise the straight pride flag at city Hall. Unfortunately, the Walsh administration is not yet committed to creating a supportive environment for straights and equality for all. We will continue to educate the Mayor and the public in anticipation that one day straights will be able to celebrate their lifestyle like everyone else. What better way to educate and foster unity than by having a parade!" So basically, the purpose is to advocate the "unique problems" straight people face. Yeah...  I mean, its principle organizer, Mark Sahady is involved with a far-right organization called "Resist Marxism". And Milo Yiannopoulos is the parade's "grand mashal". So if anything, it seems way more likely it's an alt-right rally to me. Just wish they were honest and called it "Insecure Dumb-Dumb Parade". Were you hoping for something intellectually stimulating? 🤣🤣 |
Sphinxter said: deg said: Yeah so? How does that imply that the bible seems to think that heterosexual and homosexual humans exist?there are clear words of "men" and "women" in the bible though and their roles/responsibility and even limits like do not do gay stuff or is it just a mistranslation? At no point does the bible at any point say that supposedly human beings can be divided into "heterosexual", "bisexual" and "homosexual" where "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" are supposedly incapable of feeling love or lust for a specific sex. I'm not sure how the Bible condemning homoerotic acts would at all imply that it seems to believe human beings exist that are supposedly incapable of feeling homoeroetic desires. It seems to very much imply that this desire lies at the capacity of any man. labels are invented and science (which is still new if human history is the basis) likes to invent labels for an already existing phenomenon like sexuality and you mention sexual orientation as well and that is determined by difference in genitals alone if the basis is biological |
deg said: Yeah and it didn't exist before 1886. If one go back in time to 1870 and ask random bystanders on the street if they ever felt homoeroetic desire they will all answers "Of course I have, everyone has... but to act on it is wrong!" not "Nooo; I'm heterosexual just like 95% of the population; I never ever ever ever feel that at all."Sphinxter said: Yeah so? How does that imply that the bible seems to think that heterosexual and homosexual humans exist? At no point does the bible at any point say that supposedly human beings can be divided into "heterosexual", "bisexual" and "homosexual" where "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" are supposedly incapable of feeling love or lust for a specific sex. I'm not sure how the Bible condemning homoerotic acts would at all imply that it seems to believe human beings exist that are supposedly incapable of feeling homoeroetic desires. It seems to very much imply that this desire lies at the capacity of any man. labels are invented and science (which is still new if human history is the basis) likes to invent labels for an already existing phenomenon like sexuality and you mention sexual orientation as well and that is determined by difference in genitals alone if the basis is biological Supposedly about 90-95% of human beings is "heterosexual" now depending on how one polls yet there is documented evidence of entire civilizations before this "sexual orientation" crap came up where every single individual was considered what they now call "bisexual"; it was just a fact of life that human beings were attracted to both sexes the same way it's a fact of life that human beings are attracted to both blue and brown eyes. Come oooon! this is men putting themselves into a box and forcing themselves into a "sexual orientation" label because they need their tribes. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: deg said: Yeah and it didn't exist before 1886. If one go back in time to 1870 and ask random bystanders on the street if they ever felt homoeroetic desire they will all answers "Of course I have, everyone has... but to act on it is wrong!" not "Nooo; I'm heterosexual just like 95% of the population; I never ever ever ever feel that at all."labels are invented and science (which is still new if human history is the basis) likes to invent labels for an already existing phenomenon like sexuality and you mention sexual orientation as well and that is determined by difference in genitals alone if the basis is biological Supposedly about 90-95% of human beings is "heterosexual" now depending on how one polls yet there is documented evidence of entire civilizations before this "sexual orientation" crap came up where every single individual was considered what they now call "bisexual"; it was just a fact of life that human beings were attracted to both sexes the same way it's a fact of life that human beings are attracted to both blue and brown eyes. Come oooon! this is men putting themselves into a box and forcing themselves into a "sexual orientation" label because they need their tribes. ok i agree that bisexuality is more common since i myself score 1 in the kinsey scale so i think myself as bisexual too but you exaggerate when you imply that 90-95% of human beings are bisexual, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidences since even before 1886 im sure bisexuality is not the norm by the fact of having a family base on husband and wife relationship during those old times |
| OP low key asking for it. Here you go champ Characters |
ZaBiciJun 17, 2019 2:22 PM
| Closer. |
like i said OP's a bridge dweller who wasn't wiped out with the rest of the trolls who used to brigade the forums at the beginning of the year |
effincrackhead said: god damn man, let me finish, these forum codes keep changing. like i said OP's a bridge dweller who wasn't wiped out with the rest of the trolls who used to brigade the forums at the beginning of the year |
| Closer. |
Maneki-Mew said: Sphinxter said: Come oooon! this is men putting themselves into a box and forcing themselves into a "sexual orientation" label because they need their tribes. "Tribes"? There are some people, who are too much into the LGBT community and won't interact with straight people anymore and they are pretty annoying, tbh. But you have to see that they are like that, because they had been hurt and discriminate against. There are just a bunch of the whole LGBT folks. If people never had made a difference between straight, bi and homosexual people, there wouldn't be a need for pride events etc And I literally tried to be with a guy, but I couldn't. Don't see how this could be made up, if my experience and feelings for men told me otherwise. That's exactly how culture brainwashes you; surely you noticed that there are many things which are almost universally considered disgusting in one culture but not in other cultures? These things happen because human beings have not their own opinions and are slaves to their culture. deg said: Every single male that went into the Spartan or Japanese military at various times was expected to have sexual relationship with other males and they enjoyed it. So you mean to say they just randomly by chance happened to select them?Sphinxter said: Yeah and it didn't exist before 1886. If one go back in time to 1870 and ask random bystanders on the street if they ever felt homoeroetic desire they will all answers "Of course I have, everyone has... but to act on it is wrong!" not "Nooo; I'm heterosexual just like 95% of the population; I never ever ever ever feel that at all." Supposedly about 90-95% of human beings is "heterosexual" now depending on how one polls yet there is documented evidence of entire civilizations before this "sexual orientation" crap came up where every single individual was considered what they now call "bisexual"; it was just a fact of life that human beings were attracted to both sexes the same way it's a fact of life that human beings are attracted to both blue and brown eyes. Come oooon! this is men putting themselves into a box and forcing themselves into a "sexual orientation" label because they need their tribes. ok i agree that bisexuality is more common since i myself score 1 in the kinsey scale so i think myself as bisexual too but you exaggerate when you imply that 90-95% of human beings are bisexual, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidences since even before 1886 im sure bisexuality is not the norm by the fact of having a family base on husband and wife relationship during those old times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece No, all Roman, Greek, Japanese, Indian, and Chinese citizens at various times were just "bisexual"; that was the culture; everyone was "bisexual". |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| @Sphinxter ok stay woke dude lol your power level is just too high right now so i got nothing more to add |
| In a less joking manner, I can see this being beneficial if such a parade were to occur in a homophobic country (ie. Iran) where LGBT people can celebrate sexual orientation without the censorship. Sure, they won't be able to celebrate the fact that they're gay, but they can still celebrate during pride month without horrific consequence. If the municipality questions them, they can say they're just happy to be straight and not other sexuality. Plus, it can possibly raise awareness of people saying "wait, there a non-straight possibility?" |
 |
Sphinxter said: jal90 said: How does that mean that "straight" existed? Before psychiatrists came up with this weird label of "homosexual" the widespread belief was that every human being was "bisexual". That it was a crime to act on homoerotic urges doesn't change that the widespread belief was that it was natural for every human being to feel them; one was just supposed to not act on them.Celebrated as in taken as the sociocultural norm, and yes, building an entire set of ideological constructs around them that are pretty much taken as dogmatic and indisputable. "I claim that straight didn't exist before 1886" yeah and homosexual intercourse or relationships haven't been a punishable crime for literal thousands of years in Western societies, and they aren't right now in a number of places around the world. I don't know who are you trying to fool or impress with your Very Woke Opinions on psychiatrists, like psychiatrists ever invented that people who are attracted to their same gender exist. It only shows your childish disrespect towards a group of professionals/academics. I never said that; I said they invented "straight" and all the other sexuality labels.Before psychiatrists tried to medicalize morality as they so often do every man was "bisexual" in the public eye. As deg told you, you just described science. Naming existing phenomena and labelling them. You going woke and paranoid and calling out psychiatrists for observing and labelling observable phenomena is your issue. Also I don't consider "you can be attracted to people from your same sex but only if we never ever notice in any way or form", which is what you seem to be getting at here, a good argument in trying to convince me that there wasn't structural discrimination against homosexuality. This level of mental gymnastics is amusing. |
deg said: @Sphinxter ok stay woke dude lol your power level is just too high right now so i got nothing more to add @Sphinxter Witnessed. Also, relevant for @jal90 |
| Closer. |
jal90 said: You keeps saying it's "existent" wheres historical evidence is pretty clear about that it wasn't existent before that point.Sphinxter said: How does that mean that "straight" existed? Before psychiatrists came up with this weird label of "homosexual" the widespread belief was that every human being was "bisexual". That it was a crime to act on homoerotic urges doesn't change that the widespread belief was that it was natural for every human being to feel them; one was just supposed to not act on them. I never said that; I said they invented "straight" and all the other sexuality labels. Before psychiatrists tried to medicalize morality as they so often do every man was "bisexual" in the public eye. As deg told you, you just described science. Naming existing phenomena and labelling them. You going woke and paranoid and calling out psychiatrists for observing and labelling observable phenomena is your issue. Before "sexual orientations" were invented by psychiatrists all human beings were "bisexual". Also I don't consider "you can be attracted to people from your same sex but only if we never ever notice in any way or form", which is what you seem to be getting at here, a good argument in trying to convince me that there wasn't structural discrimination against homosexuality. This level of mental gymnastics is amusing. I never said there wasn't structural decriminalisation; where did I talk about that?All I said is that all human beings were generally accepted to be bisexual before psychiatrists decided to medicalize sexual morality in this regard. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| @ZaBici You are a cutie. And so is the character limit. @Sphinxter If you are telling me that labels just began to exist when psychiatrists made them up then "generally accepted to be bisexuals" is incorrect because there was not such notion of bisexuality anyway. On the other hand, this works in a level of abstract theory that is not even feasible if any sort of display of romantic or sexual attraction towards the same sex was pursued and condemned. |
jal90Jun 17, 2019 2:21 PM
Maneki-Mew said: I went to pride this weekend and we had straight friends with us, like many others do, and as I can tell, they had lots of fun too. Milo is just something like the personification of a parody. so im sure non straight people would have loads of fun at a straight parade as well, continuing that line of logic MiraniaTLS said: Straight pride happens everyday when a couple gets married, when a bf and gf kiss in public, I do not feel that it is necessary. Its good to be proud of your sexuality, but the obvious intent of having a parade has some reference to the Gay pride one. once again, why does this mean that it's BAD to have the parade? Also the idea that this is connected to a gay pride in any way is only true in the sence that both parades promote equality and the ability for people of all sexualities to express their views. honk honk effincrackhead said: like i said OP's a bridge dweller who wasn't wiped out with the rest of the trolls who used to brigade the forums at the beginning of the year baseless ad hominem which adds nothing to the discussion. I apprecieate your input though. Please try to be more inclusive next time :) foxsuprise said: In a less joking manner, I can see this being beneficial if such a parade were to occur in a homophobic country (ie. Iran) where LGBT people can celebrate sexual orientation without the censorship. Sure, they won't be able to celebrate the fact that they're gay, but they can still celebrate during pride month without horrific consequence. If the municipality questions them, they can say they're just happy to be straight and not other sexuality. Plus, it can possibly raise awareness of people saying "wait, there a non-straight possibility?" an interesting view I hadn't considered before. Flevalt said: The way you phrased it. For one, you added an assumption in there that some people might be out to "be taking actions against it". Which is not self-evident. Almost irrational, really. Since many people hold a negative view of something, but they never bother actively taking actions against it. Not to say that there aren't people that would. But it still raises the question why you added that piece of information there. As if you had an example or an image of it in your head. Dude I really only put it in there because it's the opposite of people supporting it and i assumed reactions to it would go both ways. You're reading way too much into it. |
 |
BlakexEkalb said: deg said: @Sphinxter ok stay woke dude lol your power level is just too high right now so i got nothing more to add He is superior to everyone else so makes sense. ye his profile says he got superiority complex must be some this is Sparta!!! motto with the whole Spartans and homosexuality |
BlakexEkalb said: deg said: ye his profile says he got superiority complex must be some this is Sparta!!! motto with the whole Spartans and homosexuality I mean hey if that makes me alpha asf then it is a worthy sacrifice. i agree with that and thats why im not alpha enough to continue debating with him lol |
| It's only the beginning of the summer and I'm already sick of all the tourists in Boston/Cambridge. Man, do I hate summer tourism. This parade would probably attract even more tourists, therefore this parade is bad. On a more serious note, I think a straight pride parade is fine. A bit of a dumb publicity stunt, but whatever. |
 |
jal90 said: There wasn't; like I said a page prior "when all men are bisexual then no man is"@ZaBici You are a cutie. And so is the character limit. @Sphinxter If you are telling me that labels just began to exist when psychiatrists made them up then "generally accepted to be bisexuals" is incorrect because there was not such notion of bisexuality anyway. On the other hand, this works in a level of abstract theory that is not even feasible if any sort of display of romantic or sexual attraction towards the same sex was pursued and condemned. No, attraction was not condemned; acting upon it was.It was generally considered that these were desires everyone felt; one was just not supposed to act on it. And these were only the countries under the Abrahamic veil. In China or Japan it was both felt and acted upon. In 1700s Japan it was the normal state of affair to have one male and one female lover and that did not count as infidelity as long as both were of a different sex. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: On the other hand, this works in a level of abstract theory that is not even feasible if any sort of display of romantic or sexual attraction towards the same sex was pursued and condemned. No, attraction was not condemned; acting upon it was.It was generally considered that these were desires everyone felt; one was just not supposed to act on it. And these were only the countries under the Abrahamic veil. In China or Japan it was both felt and acted upon. In 1700s Japan it was the normal state of affair to have one male and one female lover and that did not count as infidelity as long as both were of a different sex. So what I said basically. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it... Or a level of abstract theorization that is not feasible because the moment such desire is noticed it becomes a crime and a sin. And yep, I'm talking about countries under the Abrahamic veil. I may have not emphasized that well enough in our exchange since you rightfully mention cultures that were traditionally more inclusive of other sexualities. |
"As usual, let's have a calm, civil discussion about the topic and let everyone voice their opinion." |
jal90 said: No, again, it was fine to have the desire; just not to act upon it.Sphinxter said: No, attraction was not condemned; acting upon it was. It was generally considered that these were desires everyone felt; one was just not supposed to act on it. And these were only the countries under the Abrahamic veil. In China or Japan it was both felt and acted upon. In 1700s Japan it was the normal state of affair to have one male and one female lover and that did not count as infidelity as long as both were of a different sex. So what I said basically. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it... Or a level of abstract theorization that is not feasible because the moment such desire is noticed it becomes a crime and a sin. And you're still ignoring all the countless cultures where it wasn't criminalized. And yep, I'm talking about countries under the Abrahamic veil. I may have not emphasized that well enough in our exchange since you rightfully mention cultures that were traditionally more inclusive of other sexualities. If your hypothesis of sexual orientations having always existed were to be true such cultures where every human being was and acted upon being "bisexual "could not have existed and yet they did.They were not "inclusive" to "other sexualities"; there were no "sexualities"; if there is only one sexuality that is the same as there being no sexualities. "sexual orientations" are a made up myth of western psychiatrists that men that need to prove their "identity" dive into; in a cultural vacuum all human beings are "bisexual". |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: jal90 said: No, again, it was fine to have the desire; just not to act upon it.So what I said basically. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it... Or a level of abstract theorization that is not feasible because the moment such desire is noticed it becomes a crime and a sin. And you're still ignoring all the countless cultures where it wasn't criminalized. And yep, I'm talking about countries under the Abrahamic veil. I may have not emphasized that well enough in our exchange since you rightfully mention cultures that were traditionally more inclusive of other sexualities. If your hypothesis of sexual orientations having always existed were to be true such cultures where every human being was and acted upon being "bisexual "could not have existed and yet they did.They were not "inclusive" to "other sexualities"; there were no "sexualities"; if there is only one sexuality that is the same as there being no sexualities. "sexual orientations" are a made up myth of western psychiatrists that men that need to prove their "identity" dive into; in a cultural vacuum all human beings are "bisexual". No, they are not a "made up myth", they are names and labels of existing phenomena. I thought that was already clear. Just because mammals didn't begin to be categorized as such till the 18th Century doesn't mean that they don't exist as a group. And again, why are you acting like psychiatrists "invented" sexualities when people were judged and condemned for expressing behaviors associated to sexualities thousands of years before. Also, I don't think there is a contradiction between my hypothesis and the existence of cultures that embrace a wider spectrum of sexual behavior. Your phrase is quite oddly worded because the association doesn't make any sense. In a cultural vacuum all human beings are bisexual is also again super-abstract because cultural vacuums don't exist. If you want to hypothetize, then go on. And "it was fine to have the desire but not to act upon it" is basically the tree falling in the forest xD. "As long as it's all in your mind and you never express it in any way or form that we can notice..." |
jal90Jun 17, 2019 3:29 PM
| Really pointless, but my complaining won't change that lol. |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| @Sphinxter You assume homoerotic acts were regarded as inherently attraction matter in the ancient cultures you referrenced (Ancient Greece or Rome) or militaristic circles but that's where you go wrong. Homoerotic intercourse was seen as a display of power/means of passing wisdom to younger boys. In Greece, it was okay for a master to have intercourse with their acolite, but showing romantic affection wasn't. Semen was a font of wisdom in their perception. In Rome and other militaristic cultures, it was okay for an official to penetrate a lower ranked colleague, but never under any circumstance be penetrated by him. In the poetry of Catulus, time and time again you can see him humilliating critics by alluding to their preferred passive position in a man/man relationship, as well as implying being penetrated is humiliating. Some Roman Emperors were accused of being "effeminate", that meaning they were accused of having romantic feelings for their "underlings". Therefore, it wasn't a matter of "sexual attraction", which your saying of "every human being is 'bisexual'" implies, it was a matter of power dynamics reinforcement. That's not even mentioning the views on homoerotic acts for women as an abysmal insanity, but that's asking too much, since you said "human beings" and to those cultures, women weren't even citizens. What I mean is using their cultures as woke folder won't work much, since you incur in such strong anachronism it invalidates your reasoning. If homoerotic intercourse was seen as acceptable only for one part of the equation (that being of the penetrator), same-sex attraction wasn't accepted. If homoeroctic intercourse was seen as acceptable only if no romantic feelings were involved, same-sex attraction wasn't accepted. If homoerotic intercourse was seen as acceptable only if it were to reinforce who was the more powerful/wise of the two men, same-sex attraction wasn't accepted. If there were endless laws in different cultures regarding "effeminate" men or homoromantic displays, it's because not every human being was "bisexual", it's just that homoerotic intercourse wasn't seen as a display of attraction, but of superiority, that being why it was so prominent in militaristic circles. |
KosmonautJun 17, 2019 3:57 PM
 |
KindUnicorn said: "discriminated and oppressed for centuries" Straight people are certainly being discriminated against in the past 7 years or so. Being the majority doesn't mean you can't be discriminated against. Thinking that's true goes against all logic and makes literally 0 sense.xaow said: so just because you're part of a majority means you shouldn't be proud of yourself? First of all, what evidence are you using to make this claim? Have you seen milo's interview with the event organizers he livestreamed today? Have you been to the organizers website? Second of all, let's assume you're correct. Does that mean it's wrong or that the parade/movement should be censored? That parade represents symbol of their liberation from oppression, since st8 people were not being discriminated and oppressed for centuries it would be pointless to have a st8 parade. |
 |
deg said: "still needed due to still having less rights for those gays" MATE LOL Literally the entirety of the west is at a all time high for gay acceptance, unprecedented in fact. Why have a pride parade in a place where this is no discrimination? It is mostly happening overseas, why not go to those countries and do it then? Straight people are actually being discriminated against in the west right now, so why do they not have a equal right to do the same? Can you see how much of a contradiction it is to say straight people shouldn't have a parade? A quick answer to see why people think straight people shouldn't have a pride parade is due to a deep rooted bias that anything relating to straight people is right wing and therefore bad since it's been slammed by mainstream media for the past 5 years. Anyone who can actually think for themselves for a second and not let mainstream media or anything else influence their opinion would see it is perfectly OK to have a straight pride parade.why celebrate something so common or so normal? lol meanwhile those gay pride stuff are still needed due to still having less rights for those gays like most countries do not yet accept gay marriage for example |
|
Cneq said: deg said: "still needed due to still having less rights for those gays" MATE LOL Literally the entirety of the west is at a all time high for gay acceptance, unprecedented in fact. Why have a pride parade in a place where this is no discrimination? It is mostly happening overseas, why not go to those countries and do it then? Straight people are actually being discriminated against in the west right now, so why do they not have a equal right to do the same? Can you see how much of a contradiction it is to say straight people shouldn't have a parade? A quick answer to see why people think straight people shouldn't have a pride parade is due to a deep rooted bias that anything relating to straight people is right wing and therefore bad since it's been slammed by mainstream media for the past 5 years. Anyone who can actually think for themselves for a second and not let mainstream media or anything else influence their opinion would see it is perfectly OK to have a straight pride parade.why celebrate something so common or so normal? lol meanwhile those gay pride stuff are still needed due to still having less rights for those gays like most countries do not yet accept gay marriage for example this is not just coming from the muh bias media but your government agencies too like this one https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm Gay and bisexual youth and other sexual minorities are more likely to be rejected by their families. This increases the possibility of them becoming homeless. Around 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were about: 8 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 6 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3 times more likely to have risky sex |
| What is there to be proud of? May as well be proud of having lungs. |
 |
deg said: Please give me a more up to date source man. 2009 is WAY too old and I can actually see those statistics being true back then. Like I said the acceptance of gays in the west is unprecedented in the last 5 years. Cneq said: "still needed due to still having less rights for those gays" MATE LOL Literally the entirety of the west is at a all time high for gay acceptance, unprecedented in fact. Why have a pride parade in a place where this is no discrimination? It is mostly happening overseas, why not go to those countries and do it then? Straight people are actually being discriminated against in the west right now, so why do they not have a equal right to do the same? Can you see how much of a contradiction it is to say straight people shouldn't have a parade? A quick answer to see why people think straight people shouldn't have a pride parade is due to a deep rooted bias that anything relating to straight people is right wing and therefore bad since it's been slammed by mainstream media for the past 5 years. Anyone who can actually think for themselves for a second and not let mainstream media or anything else influence their opinion would see it is perfectly OK to have a straight pride parade. this is not just coming from the muh bias media but your government agencies too like this one https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm Gay and bisexual youth and other sexual minorities are more likely to be rejected by their families. This increases the possibility of them becoming homeless. Around 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were about: 8 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 6 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3 times more likely to have risky sex |
|
Cneq said: deg said: Please give me a more up to date source man. 2009 is WAY too old and I can actually see those statistics being true back then. Like I said the acceptance of gays in the west is unprecedented in the last 5 years. this is not just coming from the muh bias media but your government agencies too like this one https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm Gay and bisexual youth and other sexual minorities are more likely to be rejected by their families. This increases the possibility of them becoming homeless. Around 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were about: 8 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 6 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3 times more likely to have risky sex 2009 is still recent by scientific studies standards of time same with government funded studies like census or surveys and im sure the fact that they still not provide up to date study about it means the data they collected is still very much relevant but if you can provide much updated counter studies against this one then sure i concede |
More topics from this board
» What does your username mean?DesuMaiden - 8 hours ago |
22 |
by DreamWindow
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» What age range do you find the most physically attractive?Ejrodiew - Apr 11 |
36 |
by DreamWindow
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Is English your native language?DesuMaiden - 3 hours ago |
19 |
by Zettaiken
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» What's the point of life?purple_rayn - 6 hours ago |
18 |
by Zayvex
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Poker? Gambling? Casino? ( 1 2 3 )EmiliaHoarfrost - May 20, 2020 |
138 |
by Serafos
»»
29 minutes ago |