# I'm for Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, & Transgenders.



## hela (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm for Tamiflu.

I don't understand how people can give enough of a shit about other people fucking to hate on gays and lesbians and trans* people. The obsession mystifies me... couldn't you be reading a book rn instead of whining about cocks and pussy and misquoting the Bible and blah, blah, blah? Calm down, kids.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> And those who embrace themselves for who they are.
> 
> In a world a homogeneity, it is refreshing to see those individuals that diverge from the norm and do so with grace, self-acceptance, and self-awareness.
> 
> ...


Thanks!  It's very hard being transgender but knowing that their is acceptance is always helpful.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

@Gypsy

The other thread was closed due to all the fighting.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

nevermore said:


> But instead of saying "differing from the norm", I would say "embracing themselves for who they are", so long as it is not hurting others and gives them genuine fulfillment. Being different is not a virtue, as delightful as variation can be, but respecting yourself is.


I agree with this. 

People aren't choosing to be different in order to be different per se, it's more about being true to self regardless of the pressure placed on one to deny one's self-awareness. If who you are happens to fit in with how many others view themselves, then that's fine even if it looks like conformity; and if who you are demands you fly in the face of others' opinions, then so be it; it's more about self-recognition and embracing oneself regardless of the pressure to be someone different.

When you're true to yourself, then you're content; when you've sold yourself out for whatever reason, misery eventually follows.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

nevermore said:


> I don't mean to imply that "different" is an insult. I actually think it's tempting to _want _to be different in some ways (at least people seem to have that perception, like when they say "oh you're just trying to be a special snowflake). And to he honest I _have_ observed this trait in a lot of people. Like when people - though I'm not sure how commonly this is done anymore - say: oh I'm so glad I'm an INTJ female, because they're only 1 percent of the population. Used to be really commonly said on these forums, at least.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with celebrating the wonderful variation in this world. *But when you applaud difference just for the sake of it you get people doing things because it makes them feel different or distinguished, instead of what makes them happy.* (The "special feeling" you get will only last so long, true happiness is what we should all be aiming for and in the end being pretentious hurts the person being pretentious more than anything else).


*I dont know anyone that will claim they are gay or trans just to get attention; this entire post is slightly off-topic.
*
He was not praising difference for no reason; he was bringing light to the fact that he respects people that have the balls to be themselves, and accept themselves, while living in a society that looks down upon uniqueness in some manner.

Did you not read this: " In a world a homogeneity,* it is refreshing to see those individuals that diverge from the norm and do so with grace, self-acceptance, and self-awareness."


*So, yeah.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

@_nevermore_ @_saintless_ 

Thanks for making the necessary point, guys  

I think too many people judge normative/nonnormative based upon a few external or hot-button factors. 

But I do appreciate that the people who value their integrity enough to display in those "hot-button" areas are showing a commendable degree of bravery.

That said, I do personally value people who are "weird/logical" above those who are less so because not only are they more likely to accept me and my shenanigans, but the conversations also tend to be way more fun.

Sometimes, when I'm in a party I can find these types of people through visual cues. . . but most of the time it takes some digging.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@Btmangan - Well, I like the weird ones as well. Most people seem like they just want to be like each such that they're afraid to be different. The ones who aren't afaird are therefore admirable. 

Some people just try to be different to be different, which is a merit but no virtue. However, others are weird but in the same manner ten thousand other people are. It's not different or original, but they still make the mistake of believing it is. 

So, personally. I try to forget about charades and just do what I like. Instead of evaluating and judging, I live.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

TWN said:


> *I dont know anyone that will claim they are gay or trans just to get attention; this entire post is slightly off-topic.
> *
> He was not praising difference for no reason; he was bringing light to the fact that he respects people that have the balls to be themselves, and accept themselves, while living in a society that looks down upon uniqueness in some manner.
> 
> ...


I think the OP was trying to say that too (which is why I applauded his post). I only suggested he change the wording to make it clear that he was not praising difference for the sake of it (which he has since done; the original post has been edited somewhat). I was glad he started this thread in response to the one that's just been closed. My comments on the hipster syndrome still stand, but I don't think we disagree on that.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Dear Sigmund said:


> The other thread was closed due to all the fighting.


Do you think it would have been possible to raise such a point of view without a few bombs going off? The thread took a turn towards the end for the better & now I'm left with even more questions on the matter without a thread to discuss them on. Anyway the title was somewhat misleading, the content was far more respectful than the title.



INTJellectual said:


> I was planning to really post a one-time long message response to your post, but earlier I was disappointed that it got closed.


I was in the process of building a juicy "new" perspective on the matter, or a very interesting one in the very least. I feel that the premature closing left the view half dealt with & misunderstood. I would still like to hear your response, perhaps it would be worth making a second thread with a more "sensitive" approach on the matter?



hela said:


> I'm for Tamiflu.
> 
> I don't understand how people can give enough of a shit about other people fucking to hate on gays and lesbians and trans* people. The obsession mystifies me... couldn't you be reading a book rn instead of whining about cocks and pussy and misquoting the Bible and blah, blah, blah? Calm down, kids.


Some people do give enough of a shit, I am one of them. I want to know & understand how the world around me works, down to the very last detail, you do not have to share this view.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> Come a little closer and tell me more...


You know what? To be honest, the pic you uploaded where your hair is long looks looks like a vampire. It looks like the picture above. And you remind me of Carlisle from Twilight. 








YOU









CARLISLE


And it's a compliment btw


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> Do you think it would have been possible to raise such a point of view without a few bombs going off? The thread took a turn towards the end for the better & now I'm left with even more questions on the matter without a thread to discuss them on. Anyway the title was somewhat misleading, the content was far more respectful than the title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the first thing is so clearly distinguish facts from opinions and to organize such in a logical fashion. We're all beholden to our own perceptions, but getting external data to corroborate those opinions is essential when you pose it to others with any type of conviction. Otherwise, you will be dismissed as an ignorant pedant or charlatan, neither of which would fit your desire for truth.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Well the first thing is so clearly distinguish facts from opinions and to organize such in a logical fashion. We're all beholden to our own perceptions, but getting external data to corroborate those opinions is essential when you pose it to others with any type of conviction. Otherwise, you will be dismissed as an ignorant pedant or charlatan, neither of which would fit your desire for truth.


The way I see it. I have an opinion, I present my opinion to others, they critique/& or support it, I am provided with facts & other opinions to measure my opinion up against & so the rock that is my perception is carved into a sculpture. I am not in any way saying I am wise beyond others. I know what I know & make judgements based on that, if in the process my judgements are still askew I am willing to carve a little more into the unfinished sculpture that is my perception.

My arrogance is a badly illustrated book cover. Read me before you make your final judgements or risk being found a hypocrite. For many are more than they may seem.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> The way I see it. I have an opinion, I present my opinion to others, they critique/& or support it, I am provided with facts & other opinions to measure my opinion up against & so the rock that is my perception is carved into a sculpture. I am not in any way saying I am wise beyond others. *I know what I know & make judgements based on that, if in the process my judgements are still askew I am willing to carve a little more into the unfinished sculpture that is my perception.
> *
> My* arrogance is a badly illustrated book cover. Read me before you make your final judgements or risk being found a hypocrite. For many are more than they may seem.*


I don't think anyone would argue people having greater depth than is realized on an internet forum. Nonetheless, in any debate, one must clearly denote their opinion and have something of corroboration to be taken seriously. If not, then that badly illustrated book cover is all that there is to be seen is it not?


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I don't think anyone would argue people having greater depth than is realized on an internet forum. Nonetheless, in any debate, one must clearly denote their opinion and have something of corroboration to be taken seriously. If not, then that badly illustrated book cover is all that there is to be seen is it not?


Perhaps I am not the one to answer this question. You see I make a lot of intuitive judgements, for just like you say that transsexuals are wired a certain way, I too am wired a certain way, intuitively. I never studied at school yet come exam time I would always score highly by just piecing things together in the moment, much to the surprise of my teachers who always expected me to fail. Things just make sense to me somehow, living in a sensor based society can be a little tricky sometimes because people always ask me "where's you sources?" or "show me on paper", well I am my own source & I haven't any papers, I'm just endlessly curious. So on that note I came on here with my opinion, not to teach & preach to everyone but rather to be taught. This is how I learn, it may not be "approved" by the majority, but it's me.

I cannot stress enough, if you do not approve of the way I process things & do not wish to apply a little understanding then simply ignore me. I in the other hand, I want to know how these things work, I feel the personal need to understand these things I want to compare points of view & opinions.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> Perhaps I am not the one to answer this question. You see I make a lot of intuitive judgements, for just like you say that transsexuals are wired a certain way, I too am wired a certain way, intuitively. I never studied at school yet come exam time I would always score highly by just piecing things together in the moment, much to the surprise of my teachers who always expected me to fail. Things just make sense to me somehow, living in a sensor based society can be a little tricky sometimes because people always ask me "where's you sources?" or "show me on paper", well I am my own source & I haven't any papers, I'm just endlessly curious. So on that note I came on here with my opinion, not to teach & preach to everyone but rather to be taught. This is how I learn, it may not be "approved" by the majority, but it's me.
> 
> I cannot stress enough, if you do not approve of the way I process things & do not wish to apply a little understanding then simply ignore me. I in the other hand, I want to know how these things work, I feel the personal need to understand these things I want to compare points of view & opinions.


That's incredibly arbitrary, fallacious, irrational, and leaves your words unsubstantiated.

No one in their right mind would waste their breath on you for _the truth_ is not your concern but rather your own personal comfort in your own personal reality is. 

That's why if this debate starts back up again I will be bringing bags of popcorn. And, creamy butter because @Jennywocky requested it. :wink: I mean she once straighten me right up when I brought only socially constructed facts into a conversation about transsexuals. She brought science, and so I now know not to tread in waters I don't fully understand. Only a research project could only truly shred light on transsexuals, a research project with some hardcore neuroscience that is. Therefore, I pass no judgement besides empathy. And... I owe Jennywocky.

I am quite the intuitive myself, but I am not ignorant enough to think my intuition does not play off of cold facts because those are what anchor everything together. They're fundamental, so they must be present in every situation, particularly those of high-slung opinions.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

it's great you're for all these things, but how is feminism related to homosexuality or transgender?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> Perhaps I am not the one to answer this question. You see I make a lot of intuitive judgements, for just like you say that transsexuals are wired a certain way,* I too am wired a certain way, intuitively. *I never studied at school yet come exam time I would always score highly by just piecing things together in the moment, much to the surprise of my teachers who always expected me to fail. *Things just make sense to me somehow, living in a sensor based society can be a little tricky sometimes because people always ask me "where's you sources?" or "show me on paper", well I am my own source & I haven't any papers, I'm just endlessly curious.* So on that note I came on here with my opinion, not to teach & preach to everyone but rather to be taught. This is how I learn, it may not be "approved" by the majority, but it's me.
> 
> I cannot stress enough, if you do not approve of the way I process things & do not wish to apply a little understanding then simply ignore me. *I in the other hand, I want to know how these things work, I feel the personal need to understand these things I want to compare points of view & opinions.*


I'm guessing that the summarized version of this would be "I'm an INTJ, and this is how I process things...intuitively."....Also judging by the stone-face and resistance to ideas that are not yet well-fit in your 'framework'....not that any other INTJs are commenting on your post....not at all....

Regardless, Intuition IS experiential; thus it does depend on external factors, in your case, probably Te. You cannot limit yourself to your intuitions as they are NEVER complete. Evidence enables your Ni to focus more deeply and keenly so that it is in accord to reality. Sensor or not, we inhabit reality. I don't like to give sources either; but the fact that I can satisfies intuition, as it is corroborated and can be effectively incorporated. 

If it were not for this process, INTJ scientists would not exist. They posit first (hypothesis) and test to see which angle is correct, gathering much evidence before allowing intuition to judge what is right. Your intuitions may be wrong, hence you need to defer to other functions or you become a pedantic that is easily disproved. 

Don't get cocky about it...Ni IS experiential and needs anchorage by Te. You posited your opinions as facts when the facts were not in your favor, so I menationed unfalsifiability. You may indeed be becoming further and further from your destination of understanding by blocking out.

This holds true for INTPs as well, but judging by your admitted 'arrogance', verbose sentence structures, and stone-faced avi, I'm going to wager INTJ



Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's great you're for all these things, but how is feminism related to homosexuality or transgender?


It was a satire; truly feminism in and of itself arose from a displeasure male-dominated societal norms, which at extremes, was extremely oppressive in much the same manner as gays endured opression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Gypsy said:


> Perhaps I am not the one to answer this question. You see I make a lot of intuitive judgements, for just like you say that transsexuals are wired a certain way, I too am wired a certain way, intuitively. I never studied at school yet come exam time I would always score highly by just piecing things together in the moment, much to the surprise of my teachers who always expected me to fail. Things just make sense to me somehow, living in a sensor based society can be a little tricky sometimes because people always ask me "where's you sources?" or "show me on paper", well I am my own source & I haven't any papers, I'm just endlessly curious. So on that note I came on here with my opinion, not to teach & preach to everyone but rather to be taught. This is how I learn, it may not be "approved" by the majority, but it's me.


Maybe you'd do better if you expressed yourself differently? One can be "endlessly curious" and an "intuitive" without seeming resistant to data or creating unnecessary offense. 

For example, in your last post, you dropped this comment: "My arrogance is a badly illustrated book cover. Read me before you make your final judgments or risk being found a hypocrite. For many are more than they may seem." Why on earth would you want to suggest people that didn't interpret you the way you want to be interpreted are hypocrites? 

An intuitive person should be able to come up with more possibilities than that. And communication goes two ways. Is this what you meant to say, or was it just worded poorly? 

(In the last thread, you would drop similar comments that seem to serve no purpose but to label negatively those who were presenting data that did not support your ideas.)




> I cannot stress enough, if you do not approve of the way I process things & do not wish to apply a little understanding then simply ignore me. I in the other hand, I want to know how these things work, I feel the personal need to understand these things I want to compare points of view & opinions.


Maybe if you ask questions and use some reflective listening and similar strategies, people might perceive you to be open and interested? 

Right now, what you state your actual desire is versus the way you have engaged others in the last thread seem to be at loggerheads.
@saintless: Thank you for the popcorn (yum!) and for the other things you said. I didn't realize it had made such a large impact, but I'm glad you found something meaningful in the discussion we were both part of.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'm guessing that the summarized version of this would be "I'm an INTJ, and this is how I process things...intuitively."....Also judging by the stone-face and resistance to ideas that are not yet well-fit in your 'framework'....not that any other INTJs are commenting on your post....not at all....
> 
> Regardless, Intuition IS experiential; thus it does depend on external factors, in your case, probably Te. You cannot limit yourself to your intuitions as they are NEVER complete. Evidence enables your Ni to focus more deeply and keenly so that it is in accord to reality. Sensor or not, we inhabit reality. I don't like to give sources either; but the fact that I can satisfies intuition, as it is corroborated and can be effectively incorporated.
> 
> ...


I am infact an ENFP, if you'd be so surprised, scoring low on F & very highly on the rest. See how people can be misjudged? I think You've set your mind on disagreeing with me for being so bold in stating my opinions, however insubstantial & absurd they seem to you. I am trying to see the other side, it would however seem to me that you are clearly not trying to see the side I hold.



FlightsOfFancy said:


> It was a satire; truly feminism in and of itself arose from a displeasure male-dominated societal norms, which at extremes, was extremely oppressive in much the same manner as gays endured opression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding.


 Did you read my response on the old thread as to why I hold opposing views to feminism?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> I am infact an ENFP, if you'd be so surprised, scoring low on F & very highly on the rest. See how people can be misjudged? I think You've set your mind on disagreeing with me for being so bold in stating my opinions, however insubstantial & absurd they seem to you. I am trying to see the other side, it would however seem to me that you are clearly not trying to see the side I hold.
> 
> Did you read my response on the old thread as to why I hold opposing views to feminism?


1) My bad; no less, it still holds for any intuitive...and as such my intuition was wrong in your 'typing'. Do you not believe yours to falter as well? A prime example of what, when little evidence is present, can lead our judgement askew. We both need an external judgement anchorage in the REAL world (you still use Te, correct)?

* side note: *However, let's not forget our two inner-most functions would be switched in INTJ/ENFP, but still accessible. Thus, it seemed like your writing/emphatic positioning of 'truth' was Fi/Te declared, when it most likely was. No less, my point was intuition is frail without some base. You'd much in the same fashion need Te to make certain anchorage. 

I have no problem with your ideas themselves because they are ideas/opinions. However, in the thread that you originally posted, you went as far as to ASK PROOF OF YOUR OPINIONS being wrong. That is a logical fallacy that perhaps your intuition overlooked, hence why I recommended a book on logic to you. Another commenter also suggested it. 

2) This is my thread now and I didn't respond by reiterating your opinion because it was directed towards me. You are not the only one with views. However, note I did not ask for 'proof of otherwise' as it is completely unfalsifiable.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> You've got to be kidding me. You can't be serious?
> 
> Firstly, how and the hell do you distinguish between "_normal immoral things_" and "_beyond normal immoral things_"? What is the foundational criteria that defines and makes distinctions between the two? And what data can you present to prove that gay people (I assume you're talking about gay men, since you made a separate category for lesbians) do 'beyond normal immoral things' that heterosexuals apparently don't do?
> 
> ...


 @_INTJellectual_

Although I certainly do not agree with everything she (INTJellectual) said, you should have taken into consideration that her cultural and religious background differs a lot from yours. I am familiar with both cultural backgrounds and I do understand why she said some of those things. 

There are more countries than just the US, your link is pointless. I understand how offensive some of the things she wrote are to you, but don't be too harsh here. The cultural-religious background and every day life in general in the Philippines is just too different from yours. I am sure it's must be hard for you to grasp this, you can only know this if you have lived there. She has been conditioned in a certain way and so are you. To the both of you, let go of your traditions, background, religion and so on. They will blind you from seeing the truth. It's nothing more than an emotional attachment that brought you a false form of security.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> You've got to be kidding me. You can't be serious?
> 
> Firstly, how and the hell do you distinguish between "_normal immoral things_" and "_beyond normal immoral things_"? What is the foundational criteria that defines and makes distinctions between the two? And what data can you present to prove that gay people (I assume you're talking about gay men, since you made a separate category for lesbians) do 'beyond normal immoral things' that heterosexuals apparently don't do?
> 
> ...


In defence of @INTJellectual I would like to say.

Allot of men, regardless of orientation, fit the negative stereotypes she listed gay men under. Now you know that when people are on their own they are less likely to cause mischief, but a crowd of likeminded individuals usually inspires people to be more expressive about themselves for feel of support. For instance a obnoxious teenager alone will be less likely to behave badly in public, but when he is with his posse he is naturally less likely to keep a lid on his folly, for two is trouble & three is more. Bullies often like to keep company & so forth. When you get group of males together, who have not yet learned to control themselves(pretty much two thirds), they general tend to be a little on the wild side. Now when you have a double dose of testosterone in a relationship then I think her opinion is somewhat justified. The orientation of the male does not matter, it comes down to the individual to be quite frank & fair to both orientations.

Another opinion I'd like to justify is her claims of gays changing partners regularly. Men are about sex, no one would deny that, not even I as a man. I know a few easily aroused women, but in most cases men are the ones who can get it up in less than a minute. I have a problem with male promiscuity in general, once again regardless of orientation. Why should women be hammered for sleeping around with everyone, but men should be allowed to get away with it? In no way should sexual orientation be allowed to excuse sexual promiscuity. 

Lastly those "fucking fairies" give some people reason to stereotype gay men wrongly. 

I get mad that sexual orientation should be used by anyone to excuse negative behaviours in either gender. The end.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> @_INTJellectual_
> 
> Although I certainly do not agree with everything she (INTJellectual) said, you should have taken into consideration that her cultural and religious background differs a lot from yours. I am familiar with both cultural backgrounds and I do understand why she said some of those things.
> 
> There are more countries than just the US, your link is pointless. I understand how offensive some of the things she wrote are to you, but don't be too harsh here. The cultural-religious background and every day life in general in the Philippines is just too different from yours. I am sure it's must be hard for you to grasp this, you can only know this if you have lived there. She has been conditioned in a certain way and so are you. To the both of you, let go of your traditions, background, religion and so on. They will blind you from seeing the truth. It's nothing more than an emotional attachment that brought you a false form of security.


Cultural background doesn't justify ignorance. It doesn't justify anything. It does explain a lot though. My link isn't pointless. It shows evidence that men can and are raped by heterosexual men, and that this archetype can be prevalent in many cases. Just because the statistic focuses on America does not mean that its implications are irrelevant or invalid. I'm not even sure how you could come to that conclusion? However, if you have some non-western statistics dealing with gay men and their apparent rates of "immoral" behavior and sexual offenses, then please post them. But if you're only going to make apologies for a post you claim not to agree with, then please take your passive aggressiveness elsewhere. 

I can't stand the mentality that makes it seem as though it's wrong to criticize the beliefs of other cultures (though misogyny and homophobia/transphobia are global issues rather than particular to any specific culture). They're very heavily Catholic in the Philippines, and that same Catholicism/Christian ignorance of sexuality/gender expression exists within America.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I always presumed that a big reason gay men often appear more "feminine" than straight men is because they don't have to worry about how their sexuality is perceived. A straight man might be less likely to admit his undying love for musicals or manicures in case his "manliness" or sexuality is called into question. This type of insecurity is absolutely ridiculous, but it does exist among many men.


This is a valid point, I can definitely agree with you here. However consider also allot of gay men act even more feminine than women, is it an act?




Dolorous Haze said:


> And a "masculine lesbian" who identifies as a woman is still a woman....it sounds like you had a crush on a lesbian and got rejected. :tongue: You also don't have a right to say who is a "real" homosexual and who isn't.


Funny you should say actually. My first time was with a woman who considered herself a lesbian, being an immature sixteen year old I left her cold & she was the one who pursued me. I was the first male she'd ever been with & the last one too. I assume that my behaviour left her to confirm her stance against men, for too often men just leave women after they've had their way with her. I am deeply ashamed till this day that I left her & a few others the way I did. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that allot of women just get fed up with men's hurtful behaviour & turn to the same sex. No I don't have the right, you're right. However this encounter along with a few others left me wondering though...



Dolorous Haze said:


> _"I feel like they genuinely feel attraction to the same sex."_ ------....Wow. What even is that...I mean I don't even know...what...I don't even know how to respond to that...


It's a personal opinion.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Cultural background doesn't justify ignorance. It doesn't justify anything. It does explain a lot though. My link isn't pointless. It shows evidence that men can and are raped by heterosexual men, and that this archetype can be prevalent in many cases. Just because the statistic focuses on America does not mean that its implications are irrelevant or invalid. I'm not even sure how you could come to that conclusion? However, if you have some non-western statistics dealing with gay men and their apparent rates of "immoral" behavior and sexual offenses, then please post them. But if you're only going to make apologies for a post you claim not to agree with, then please take your passive aggressiveness elsewhere.
> 
> I can't stand the mentality that makes it seem as though it's wrong to criticize the beliefs of other cultures (though misogyny and homophobia/transphobia are global issues rather than particular to any specific culture). They're very heavily Catholic in the Philippines, and that same Catholicism/Christian ignorance of sexuality/gender expression exists within America.


Let me make a few things clear. I have no opinion here. I simply don't care about this and it's not my problem because I don't want it to be my problem. I am not passive aggressive either. If I don't like something, I will let you know.

I didn't come to any conclusion. We all know that hetero sexual men are capable of rape. I don't care about the numbers because I have no stats of the Ph so it was just irrelevant for now so I discarded it. You should have known that a comparison is impossible.

I am just saying you are comparing peanuts (US) with bananas (Ph). Call it ignorance if you will. The only thing I saw is that you were personally offended by someone who is not aware. 

It's just not about Catholicism only. It's deeper rooted and I have seen how some gay men behave there and it not just confined to a few places only. I think you judged her a bit too harsh on some points because you took it personal. 

Cultural background doesn't justify ignorance you say and I agree. But I am not sure if all her points can be traced back to ignorance. It's very hard to let go of one's cultivation and conditioning. I think you some points a bit too personal because they affected you.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> This is a valid point, I can definitely agree with you here. However consider also allot of gay men act even more feminine than women, is it an act?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gay men who act "ultra-feminine" do so because they're comfortable being that way and they identify more with females and feminine behaviours. The vast majority of the time they are not putting it on. I don't really see why they would. Not all gay men act feminine though, most of them are just "normal guys" who happen to be attracted to men instead of women.


She was probably just experimenting with men. It's a possibility that she was "pursuing" you because she _wanted_ to be your girlfriend, because she _wanted_ to be straight. The vast majority of lesbians and bisexual women are not attracted to women because men treated them badly. No matter how badly men treat a woman, I don't see how they could make them want a sexual and romantic relationship with another woman if they were not bisexual in the first place, or a lesbian trying to cover up her sexuality.

I really don't understand why anyone would pretend to be gay, or force themselves to be attracted to the same sex. "Hey, you know what I don't have enough of in my life? Some good ol' discrimination. I wonder if I can wean myself off of the opposite sex?" -said nobody ever. It's why you don't hear the term "Closeted heterosexual" thrown around very often.

It's a personal opinion that suggests that there are homosexuals who are not genuinely homosexual. Are you a genuine heterosexual? Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, in the same way you are attracted to the opposite sex. It's not exactly that difficult to understand.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Gypsy said:


> When you get group of males together, who have not yet learned to control themselves(pretty much two thirds), they general tend to be a little on the wild side. Now when you have a double dose of testosterone in a relationship then I think her opinion is somewhat justified.


And here lies your problem. Your argument rests on the assumption that males are naturally inclined to be savages. And I disagree with this assertion vehemently. And it's disgusting that people continue to propagate such harmful gender constructions. Men are not naturally inclined to be aggressive, they are taught to be this way. They are pressured into "performing" these false notions of masculine aggression in order for them to achieve the social title and _prestige_ of manhood. 

So a group of boys don't get into trouble together because they haven't been taught to control some supposed innate douchebaggery, but because their social conditioning has taught them that it is proper for males to dominate others. This is mainly where "male aggression" stems from. Which means that I further reject your attempt at trying to imply that such savage behavior is linked to testosterone. *vomits* 



> Another opinion I'd like to justify is her claims of gays changing partners regularly. Men are about sex, no one would deny that, not even I as a man.


Men aren't about sex. Human beings are about sex. Human beings (on average) crave sex. Many of us need sex. There's nothing wrong with any of this. The reason why men might have more reported instances of having casual sex or multiple sexual partners, is because the tenets of manhood stipulates that men should be sexually vigorous. And naturally because of this men are able to sleep with more people free from impunity. 

However, even if a woman sleeps with only two men, she can, and often times is labeled as a slut. She's fast and easy. Such social condemnation of female sexuality provides a way to control the sexual behavior of women, and it is a method that has noticeably worked to suppress a woman's need for regular sexual affection. This only means that gay men don't have to deal with as many potential sexual partners that are taught to be chaste due to their gender (like women are), which can give the appearance that gay men change sexual partners more often than straight men and women, and lesbians, etc.



> Lastly those "fucking fairies" give some people reason to stereotype gay men wrongly.


Um no. Homophobia and misogyny gives some people a reason to stereotype gay men wrongly. Mostly because their negative categorization of feminine gay men is actually based upon the hatred that they have for men who act like "women". Your victim blaming is a very nearsighted way to analyze this whole issue.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> Let me make a few things clear. I have no opinion here. I simply don't care about this and it's not my problem because I don't want it to be my problem.


If you don't care about this then why are you here? It doesn't make sense. But I'm glad that you're able to not care. However, I am a part of the LGBTQ family, and I will not allow people to make baseless assumptions and accusations against my community. Period.



> We all know that hetero sexual men are capable of rape.


Apparently we all don't know this if someone cites male-male rape as a reason to to define the gay male community as "beyond immoral" and decadent. Of course male-female & female-male sexual assault has never been used to define the general characteristics and attributes of the heterosexual community. Such ignorance needs to be criticized openly and aggressively. Otherwise such ignorant information could be utilized by angry anti-gay mobs.



> I don't care about the numbers because I have no stats of the Ph so it was just irrelevant for now so I discarded it.


If there is no mathematical data comparing the rates of sexual assault committed by heterosexual vs homosexual males in the Philippines, then what evidence did INTJellectual base her information on? I find it odd that evidence showing that men are more likely to be raped by a heterosexual man should be invalidated, when people who imply that gay men are more prone to raping other men are allowed to make such statements without presenting one shred of evidence to support their assertions. I'm sorry but I just can't accept such excessive hypocrisy. 



> The only thing I saw is that you were personally offended by someone who is not aware.


Firstly, I'll neither deny, nor apologize for being offended at her claims. But it's not like I just called her stupid and walked away. I posed questions to her that explicitly shows the inherent hypocrisy, bias, and double standards in which her beliefs are based on. Every quality she gave for her dislike of the gay male community, can also be found within the heterosexual populations of the world. So why only have contempt for gay men, when straight men have been known to engage in the same behaviors that she listed? And why judge the entire gay community for the actions of a few, when she doesn't do the same thing towards the heterosexual community? I think these are completely legitimate questions, and I'm obviously not going to take them back.



> It's deeper rooted and I have seen how some gay men behave there and it not just confined to a few places only.


Any behavior gay men engage in, has also been engaged in by heterosexual men. Unless of course the crutch of the issue is the fact that the sexual behavior gay men are engaging in includes male-male sex acts? Lol. Please feel free to list the behaviors you've witnessed by homosexual men that validates INTJellectual's views.




> I think you judged her a bit too harsh on some points because you took it personal.


I didn't judge her too harshly. I analyzed and judged what she said based on the evidence of what she actually said. And yes, again I'll neither deny, nor apologize for the fact that I took what she said personally. She insulted members of my community whilst providing absolutely no evidence to support her assertions. Me taking her statement personally does not invalidate the fact that I've rationally picked apart the inconsistencies in her post. I mean honestly, when did taking something personal become an automatic indicator of irrational discourse?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> If you don't care about this then why are you here? It doesn't make sense. But I'm glad that you're able to not care. However, I am a part of the LGBTQ family, and I will not allow people to make baseless assumptions and accusations against my community. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am trying to defend my friend and the reason behind her thoughts. I thought I made myself quite clear that I am distancing myself from her statements. I have already told you that I am personally not interested in your beliefs. They mean nothing to me because I don't want to identify you with an idea. That's a compliment.

I saw your conversation with gypsy and although you made some strong points, you twisted some of his words and exaggerated his claims. I am not going there. Your opinion means nothing to me. I don't want to come off as a douche but I really don't care. You can't provoke me. I don't care about your community because it makes you attached. I don't deal well with people who identify themselves with communities, religions, political systems and this and that. I am dealing with you right now, not your community. Your community is nothing but a thought based on an idea with no added value really. This may sound harsh but it's the truth. You have added value however. You, as a human being.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

dude can you make your own thread please?

you still keep spouting opinions on a small sample size without providing proper documentation, videos, or anything else. 

you clearly want us to view your view as valid without commensurate basis.

this is an empowerment thread and ive already posted videos to orientation and genetics. 


dont get my thread closed please or im just going to start hitting the report button for derailment.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> dude can you make your own thread please?
> 
> you still keep spouting opinions on a small sample size without providing proper documentation, videos, or anything else.
> 
> ...


Who is dude?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

more videos and discussion on lgbt issues and self acceptance to come....open for on topic discussion


as a mod has clearly warned us about derailing, posts with no agenda but to derail will be reported accordingly


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

im not on my computer and not going back and forth. im talking about one person in particular but it applies to the lot of posters...even myself to a degree



topic next: lgbt psychology


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> I am trying to defend my friend and the reason behind her thoughts. I thought I made myself quite clear that I am distancing myself from her statements. I have already told you that I am personally not interested in your beliefs. They mean nothing to me because I don't want to identify you with an idea. That's a compliment.


I only attacked your friend's statements and her disregard of logic in making those inconsistent statements. I didn't attack her personally. Therefore, if you're not trying to defend her _assertions_ then you have no reason to defend her against me. I'm not attacking her personally, only what she wrote. That is all.

And please don't patronize me and then tell me that I should take your condescension as a compliment. It's like pissing on me and then trying to convince me that it's raining. Though, your urine is less detrimental to my health than your patronizing attitude. :dry:



> Your opinion means nothing to me. I don't want to come off as a douche but I really don't care. You can't provoke me. I don't care about your community because it makes you attached. I don't deal well with people who identify themselves with communities, religions, political systems and this and that.


Honestly, it doesn't really interest me who you do, or don't deal well with. It doesn't even seem like you have any genuine business quoting me because you don't even care about what I wrote. So what's the point of continuing this conversation? You don't care, and I've already said my peace to what INTJellectual wrote. It is done.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> I only attacked your friend's statements and her disregard of logic in making those inconsistent statements. I didn't attack her personally. Therefore, if you're not trying to defend her _assertions_ then you have no reason to defend her against me. I'm not attacking her personally, only what she wrote. That is all.
> 
> And please don't patronize me and then tell me that I should take your condescension as a compliment. It's like pissing on me and then trying to convince me that it's raining. Though, your urine is less detrimental to my health than your patronizing attitude. :dry:
> 
> ...


I am sorry that you feel that way. Being seen as a human being and an individual is far more valuable than to be seen as someone who is just part of an idea. It makes me non-prejudiced and open minded.

I can smell your type 1 all over the place. You are making the wrong decisions though. And this coming from another type 1. *laughs*My idea leads to a perfect collaboration between humans while you are creating division among genders, sexual preferences and so on. You are corrupting the non-gender symbol and you are not even aware of that.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> I am sorry that you feel that way. Being seen as a human being and an individual is far more valuable than to be seen as someone who is just part of an idea. It makes me non-prejudiced and open minded.


Yes, well anyone who has been paying attention to my numerous posts throughout this entire website knows that I positively abhor individualism....



> You are corrupting the non-gender symbol and you are not even aware of that.


I deserve to be severely punished. However, I don't want to derail this thread. If you want to make a new thread about "your way", then please feel free to. I'll gladly read what you have to say about your personal philosophy. Anything to free my mind of this collectivist socio-marxist mentality that has me in bondage. But I won't continue this conversation here.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> And here lies your problem. Your argument rests on the assumption that males are naturally inclined to be savages. And I disagree with this assertion vehemently. And it's disgusting that people continue to propagate such harmful gender constructions. Men are not naturally inclined to be aggressive, they are taught to be this way. They are pressured into "performing" these false notions of masculine aggression in order for them to achieve the social title and _prestige_ of manhood.
> 
> So a group of boys don't get into trouble together because they haven't been taught to control some supposed innate douchebaggery, but because their social conditioning has taught them that it is proper for males to dominate others. This is mainly where "male aggression" stems from. Which means that I further reject your attempt at trying to imply that such savage behavior is linked to testosterone. *vomits*


While I totally agree with you that men are not REQUIRED to be savages, nor should they be at all, I can't tell whether you are offering a moderate view here or extreme view. The impact of testosterone on physical development (building muscle mass, making males bulky and with more torque in their upper body bone structure, thus physically strong than the same sized woman), its role in increasing energy and engagement, its correlation with competitive activity, and its contribution to sex drive is not a big secret or even something that is much debated. 

Testosterone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But if you're just saying that, regardless of any hormone influence, man can choose to not be savages, well... yes. We are still in control of our own behaviors.




> This only means that gay men don't have to deal with as many potential sexual partners that are taught to be chaste due to their gender (like women are), which can give the appearance that gay men change sexual partners more often than straight men and women, and lesbians, etc.


I agree with this. You get two males together, operating on male sexual behavior patterns (regardless of their origin), and that's what you're going to see. It's not that being gay makes you more promiscuous or sexual. If there was a group of women with sexual behavior patterns that were similar to men's (and no fear of getting pregnant, etc.), you'd see a lot of het men fucking and jumping around just as much as anything in the gay community.

But really, I've found a lot of monogamous male gay couples nowadays. They're in it for the long haul, like anyone else. I think when society won't allow you to be in legitimate long-term relationships with your partner (and treats you as a second-class citizen), closeness and excitement experienced through sex is pretty much the runner-up.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Psychologists claimed they had never "seen such a clear case" of desire to change sex. He went through many to rule out mental illness as the cause, and no doctors (_*following the DSM and with adequate training.*_..) could diagnose him with a mental illness. It was with the help of his parents and medical professionals that he now leads his life as the beautiful 'Kim'. After further psychological testing, it was found that Kim had no mental disorders; furthermore, her general sense of well-being/comfort was described as_* ABOVE AVERAGE for her age leve*_l.

While I strongly suggest burgeoning transexuals consider sex change seriously; I believe in the end it is your body. Please consult many psychologists and get a general consensus as some may act out of bias. However, psychology is becoming more liberal (homosexuality used to be a DSM disorder until 1970) and positivistic. As such, there is hope for your happiness, however that may be achieved. 


Next: LGBT sociology ('masculine vs feminine' in the gay community).


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> While I totally agree with you that men are not REQUIRED to be savages, nor should they be at all, I can't tell whether you are offering a moderate view here or extreme view. The impact of testosterone on physical development (building muscle mass, making males bulky and with more torque in their upper body bone structure, thus physically strong than the same sized woman), its role in increasing energy and engagement, its correlation with competitive activity, and its contribution to sex drive is not a big secret or even something that is much debated.


No. I'm not saying that hormones have little affect on us. But I am saying that testosterone does not make men into savages. It does not make males naturally inclined to bully others like the other poster implied. Now, hormonal imbalances might affect one's mental, emotional, and psychological stability, but I will never believe that males are born prepackaged with aggressive mannerisms that must be socially conditioned out of them during their development stages.



> But really, I've found a lot of monogamous male gay couples nowadays. They're in it for the long haul, like anyone else. I think when society won't allow you to be in legitimate long-term relationships with your partner (and treats you as a second-class citizen), closeness and excitement experienced through sex is pretty much the runner-up.


Agreed.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Chris Crocker, as wile as he may be, brings up exceptional points and attacks them head-on. There is a schism in the gay community at times--the 'fems' and the 'masculines'. Most men, period, lie somewhere on the spectrum and do not fit into such discrete packages. Anecdotally, a hyper-masculinzied figure is normally associated with narcissism and strength; whereas, a hyper-feminine figure is noted as demure and coy. This plays well in media where people such as Marylin Monroe would helm careers off the dichotomy, yet in real life it is faintly representative of the majority. 

We are men. We are women. Our mannerisms may lie inbetween the spectrum (the male writing this lies on the masculine side, but fully embraces his feminine qualities). However, I do have to wonder why women get the BEST FUCKING SHOES:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> No. I'm not saying that hormones have little affect on us. But I am saying that testosterone does not make men into savages. It does not make males naturally inclined to bully others like the other poster implied. Now, hormonal imbalances might affect one's mental, emotional, and psychological stability, but I will never believe that males are born prepackaged with aggressive mannerisms that must be socially conditioned out of them during their development stages.


So what do you think of Lord of the Flies? Just curious. I know it's a crafted story, though, and was meant to have a point.

To go along with what you are saying, my experience is that boys tend to enter directly competitive physical behavior (on whatever level) more quickly, on the whole, but that doesn't mean "bully." 

Small anecdote: I did raise two boys, and they were pretty rambunctious from the start, even the introverted one once he got going. Birthday parties with boys are a trip -- it's more like free-form chaos, than keeping to a plan. They want to chase, throw, make everything into some kind of active game, on the whole.

However, neither of my boys ever was a bully. They did not become bullies either, after being around other boys who were. They had no real interest in that.



FlightsOfFancy said:


> However, I do have to wonder why women get the BEST FUCKING SHOES:


Meh. Only if you have tiny feet.
But men's shoes do pretty much suck on the whole, at least in regards to variety.

That could probably be a thread in itself, honestly. Are good shoes for the sake of women, or to please men? Define a "good shoe." Etc. 



FlightsOfFancy said:


> Psychologists claimed they had never "seen such a clear case" of desire to change sex. He went through many to rule out mental illness as the cause, and no doctors (_*following the DSM and with adequate training.*_..) could diagnose him with a mental illness. It was with the help of his parents and medical professionals that he now leads his life as the beautiful 'Kim'. After further psychological testing, it was found that Kim had no mental disorders; furthermore, her general sense of well-being/comfort was described as_* ABOVE AVERAGE for her age leve*_l.


I followed Kim's case on and off; yes, she was put through a huge battery of tests. Transition in your early/mid teens (with hormone blockers) is not that big a deal due to it being reversible; surgery is usually not a recommendation, because it's basically irreversible, but Kim was a special case and had been properly and extensively screened.

I've seen footage of her when she was 11-12, as a "boy" .... and honestly, I had trouble seeing her as a boy even then. It wasn't just a hard situation for her to be stuck in, it can be physically dangerous since there's always a few male peers who are physically abuse in situations like that.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> So what do you think of Lord of the Flies? Just curious. I know it's a crafted story, though, and was meant to have a point.


I have not read that story since I was a child  But I don't believe that the actions of the boys in the story were inherent to their nature as males. Their behavior is nothing more than an extreme variation of the "mean girl" culture that exists between high school girls. What's the difference between the group of boys trying to kill each other in Lord of the Flies, and the group of cheerleader girls that beat their own "friend" to a bloody pulp in Florida? Except the fact that no one died in the latter? However, if these cheerleader girls were stuck on a deserted island where common civility would naturally take a back seat to primitive survival, I would have no problem believing that they would be capable of killing off members of their group that don't conform to the status quo.



> To go along with what you are saying, my experience is that boys tend to enter directly competitive physical behavior (on whatever level) more quickly, on the whole, but that doesn't mean "bully."
> 
> Small anecdote: I did raise two boys, and they were pretty rambunctious from the start, even the introverted one once he got going. Birthday parties with boys are a trip -- it's more like free-form chaos, than keeping to a plan. They want to chase, throw, make everything into some kind of active game, on the whole.


Haha I was the same way when I was a child (I still am actually). That's probably why I'm so good with male children. I like the feeling of physically competing with others (or engaging in any competition for that matter). I like knowing that I'm physically stronger than my competition (and I hate it when I'm not lol). But as you know, I'm a woman. My testosterone levels are normal as far as I know. 

Here's the thing though. There were plenty of girls who were the same as me (and as your male children) when they were younger. But whenever they engaged in this kind of activity, someone would always be there to remind them to "act like a lady". Apparently it's not ladylike to run around climbing trees, and getting your clothes muddy. So I wonder if it's more social conditioning rather than hormones that causes these differences between boys and girl as far as competition goes?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

I wasn't physically competitive at all when I was a kid. I wasn't physically strong, but I had no desire to be competitive either. I just didn't enjoy or see the point of "rough and tumble play". At the time I thought of myself as more feminine than the other boys, but I think my INTPness had more to do with it than anything else...

On the whole boys do tend to be more physical, but I think it's a combination of personality and hormones. One can intensify the other, or channel the same gender-related trait into a less typical outlet.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> I have not read that story since I was a child  But I don't believe that the actions of the boys in the story were inherent to their nature as males. Their behavior is nothing more than an extreme variation of the "mean girl" culture that exists between high school girls. What's the difference between the group of boys trying to kill each other in Lord of the Flies, and the group of cheerleader girls that beat their own "friend" to a bloody pulp in Florida? Except the fact that no one died in the latter? However, if these cheerleader girls were stuck on a deserted island where common civility would naturally take a back seat to primitive survival, I would have no problem believing that they would be capable of killing off members of their group that don't conform to the status quo.


Well, I think we're talking "generalities." Is it more typical for cheerleader girls to beat their own "friend" to a pulp, or did the news quickly spread because it wasn't status quo? There will always be exceptions, considering the complexity of personality, the range of gendered behavior and biology which allows for overlap, etc. 

But I do think it's worth noting that women have been getting more vicious physically -- usually in gangs. It's still a form of social violence, but now it has ventured in the physical realm.




> Haha I was the same way when I was a child (I still am actually). That's probably why I'm so good with male children. I like the feeling of physically competing with others (or engaging in any competition for that matter). I like knowing that I'm physically stronger than my competition (and I hate it when I'm not lol). But as you know, I'm a woman. My testosterone levels are normal as far as I know.


To be honest, anyone with a "ring" in the sidebar for their gender, I typically have no real clue what gender they are unless they tell me or they specifically say it...



> Here's the thing though. There were plenty of girls who were the same as me (and as your male children) when they were younger. But whenever they engaged in this kind of activity, someone would always be there to remind them to "act like a lady". Apparently it's not ladylike to run around climbing trees, and getting your clothes muddy. So I wonder if it's more social conditioning rather than hormones that causes these differences between boys and girl as far as competition goes?


I don't know if it's "more," but I definitely think all those years of social training do put restraints on females. I guess we'd have to look at it more cross-culturally and see what happens in cultures where those restraints are not so extreme, taking into account whether particular nationalities generally have higher or lower concentrations of particular hormones levels, and whatever other factors people think are relevant. It's such a crapshoot at times trying to figure these kinds of things out...


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> You've got to be kidding me. You can't be serious?
> 
> Firstly, how and the hell do you distinguish between "_normal immoral things_" and "_beyond normal immoral things_"? What is the foundational criteria that defines and makes distinctions between the two? And what data can you present to prove that gay people (I assume you're talking about gay men, since you made a separate category for lesbians) do 'beyond normal immoral things' that heterosexuals apparently don't do?
> 
> ...


Oh my! A simple blunt statement and opinion went this far! Someone misunderstood the content of my post BIG TIME! Chill bro, but you've become overly defensive and sensitive regarding my post. You should've waited for my reply so that I'd still think you're a decent person worthy of a decent conversation. But you talked behind my back and you aggressively and vehemently pointed out your perceived and ignorance and stupidity of me. Thank you for that. Now I know what kind of a person I'm dealing with. Let me get this straight you all-knowing with immense superior intelligence member of LGBT. Reread my post, then reread it again. Did I say that "only" gay men are are into promiscuity, rape, and other immoral things? I only said what I don't like and disapprove of what the gays do. I never said nor implied that I HATE the gay community. Immoral things done by other sexes is a different topic and I focused on the main the topic: non-straight people including gays. Cultural background has nothing to do with my ignorance as what you have said, you very wise and intelligent one. Just say, this is what I've observed and experienced by "many" gays. In fact, I consider myself cultureless, untraditional, and not chauvinist. Your wild imagination amuses me that you perceive I only see the wrongs about gay men and not the other sexes or in other short word: double standard. On contrary, I am one who loathe double standard. I'm for equality, equal opportunity, and against oppression of all kinds: oppression and sexual assault on men, women, children, young, or old, or any disadvantaged groups included. So to answer some of your questions:



> Firstly, how and the hell do you distinguish between "_normal immoral things_" and "_beyond normal immoral things_"? What is the foundational criteria that defines and makes distinctions between the two? And what data can you present to prove that gay people (I assume you're talking about gay men, since you made a separate category for lesbians) do 'beyond normal immoral things' that heterosexuals apparently don't do?


Let me rephrase and explain it.

"normal immoral things" - the kind of act done by two sexes i.e. male-male sex, which are considered taboo by society, but nowadays it is getting some acceptance.

"beyond normal immoral things" - I should've said "beyond the norm". This includes party sex (orgy), threesome, anal sex by male partners, bestiality.

Those two things are also applicable to all sexes not just gays, clear?



> You say that you don't like gay men being harassed or bullied, but how could they not face these things when people arbitrarily believe that they have a higher propensity to do "_*beyond-normal immoral things*_"?


Do you imply that I'm being a hypocrite and gay-hating? I do mean that I don't like gay men being harassed nor bullied and any other people incapable of defending themselves.

And to summarize your thoughts on the matter, you always compare gay's immoral behavior i.e. promiscuity, rape, stealing, cheating, STD-spreading to other sexes. Just because I didn't mention other sexes about those immoral things I highly disapprove, you conclude that I have a bias towards gay men when it comes to those immoral things and behavior. Take note, we are talking about gay's questionable behavior and why I don't like it, not immoral things in general done by all sexes. Promiscuity, immorality and whatnot can be dealt with another topic separate from this one. 

To present you with a convoluted logic you might perceive from me, I state this: If A is B, then C, otherwise, D.
If a person is oppressive, has no respect for others, then it is just right that he/she should be punished and /or damned, otherwise there's no reason for doing so. So when I said I don't like gays being bullied nor harassed, my idea/thought was valid, and I'm not being hypocrite and bias against gay men.

I abhor, loathe, detest, any oppression, maltreating, disrespecting of any kinds. And I still uphold value and principle though it may seem conservative to you. Btw, I got fair balance between being conservative and being open-minded

And since you highlighted "THONGS", it led me to ask you this: Do you wear THONGS? 

In fact only @_Gypsy_ got what I'm talking about. And thanks Gypsy and @_All in Twilight_ for defending me while I'm gone.

Btw, thanks for sharing the link. It's not useless trust me. I just wish you talked with decency and respect, and I could've replied you with more civil approach had you not attacked me and backstabbed me behind back. I have zero tolerance for self-elevation of ego by condescending attacking others. I'm at not all impressed. If we had interacted before, you couldn't say these harsh, sour words you said. You might see me as one of the most understanding and accepting of all people. Next time you post, be sure to understand first the content and the intention, okay? before you get embarrassed.

My words stop here. Though I heavily disliked your posts, I have no personal resentment towards you. I just came here in PerC to learn, not to elevate myself by being a douchebag to anyone.

Cheers!


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> Oh my! A simple blunt statement and opinion went this far! Someone misunderstood the content of my post BIG TIME! Chill bro, but you've become overly defensive and sensitive regarding my post. You should've waited for my reply so that I'd still think you're a decent person worthy of a decent conversation. But you talked behind my back and you aggressively and vehemently pointed out your perceived and ignorance and stupidity of me. Thank you for that. Now I know what kind of a person I'm dealing with. Let me get this straight you all-knowing with immense superior intelligence member of LGBT. Reread my post, then reread it again. Did I say that "only" gay men are are into promiscuity, rape, and other immoral things? *I only said what I don't like and disapprove of what the gays do. *I never said nor implied that I HATE the gay community. Immoral things done by other sexes is a different topic and I focused on the main the topic: non-straight people including gays. Cultural background has nothing to do with my ignorance as what you have said, you very wise and intelligent one. *Just say, this is what I've observed and experienced by "many" gays. *In fact, I consider myself cultureless, untraditional, and not chauvinist. Your wild imagination amuses me that you perceive I only see the wrongs about gay men and not the other sexes or in other short word: double standard. On contrary, I am one who loathe double standard. I'm for equality, equal opportunity, and against oppression of all kinds: oppression and sexual assault on men, women, children, young, or old, or any disadvantaged groups included. So to answer some of your questions:
> 
> Let me rephrase and explain it.
> 
> ...


Fundamental problem being no one cares what you deem immoral or moral because no one asked about your personal ethics (_*immoral anal sex*_...yeah there's a bible chat here somewhere..but not all of us follow it seeing as it has no scientific grounds) Also, agreeing with Gypsy because it's 'what you've observed'...sorry your observations != qualified data so thank you for leaving:














A man dicusses the issues surrounding being gay and in the military.


Next: A much needed khanacademy lesson on statistics, sample sizes, and bias.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

INTJellectual said:


> Oh my! A simple blunt statement and opinion went this far! Someone misunderstood the content of my post BIG TIME! Chill bro, but you've become overly defensive and sensitive regarding my post. You should've waited for my reply so that I'd still think you're a decent person worthy of a decent conversation. But you talked behind my back and you aggressively and vehemently pointed out your perceived and ignorance and stupidity of me. Thank you for that. Now I know what kind of a person I'm dealing with. Let me get this straight you all-knowing with immense superior intelligence member of LGBT. Reread my post, then reread it again. Did I say that "only" gay men are are into promiscuity, rape, and other immoral things? I only said what I don't like and disapprove of what the gays do. I never said nor implied that I HATE the gay community. Immoral things done by other sexes is a different topic and I focused on the main the topic: non-straight people including gays. Cultural background has nothing to do with my ignorance as what you have said, you very wise and intelligent one. Just say, this is what I've observed and experienced by "many" gays. In fact, I consider myself cultureless, untraditional, and not chauvinist. Your wild imagination amuses me that you perceive I only see the wrongs about gay men and not the other sexes or in other short word: double standard. On contrary, I am one who loathe double standard. I'm for equality, equal opportunity, and against oppression of all kinds: oppression and sexual assault on men, women, children, young, or old, or any disadvantaged groups included. So to answer some of your questions:
> 
> Let me rephrase and explain it.
> 
> ...


I'm going to leave you a voice message. I simply don't feel like writing. Forgive me for my grammatical errors. I've been up for 23 hours and I completely mispronounced several words without remorse :|

Vocaroo | Voice message


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@INTJellectual - 

If you weren't trying to state that gays are more immoral or inferior to heterosexuals, then you largely messed up in attempt to communicate whatever idea you do hold about gay people. 

I also interpreted your words similar to what KINGoftheAMAZONS said.

When you take a population of people and then specify a particular portion of that population (in this case gays) and then go on and on about the negative things you perceive them to do, then people are going to come to a reasonable conclusion that you don't believe the rest of population does those things as well. Why? Because you took the conscious time and effort to specify and separate a portion of the population, which to most people means you think that portion is distinctive enough from the entire population that they deserve to be analyze under different terms.

That right there was the nonsense that KINGoftheAMAZONS was referring to. This is because there is no distinctive trait between gays and heteros besides who they are attracted to. The claims you made were sloppy generalizations, which anyone who cares for logic would know constitutes a major (albeit common) fallacy. Neither gays or heteros are more immoral than each other. Maybe you considered sodomy hugely immoral compared to say lying and cheating. Gay men almost exclusively have sex in that manner, however hetero couples do that to from time to time. So if that is part of your hierarchal ranking of mores, then lesbians are the most virtuous for they never have sex like that. That right there is very simple, linear logic. 

Though, I don't believe sodomy is immoral, and other things you referenced like pedophiles and bestiality are not exclusive to gays. I have seen you admit that yourself, but you didn't do that in the first place. You might not think that it needed to be noted, but it did. If you talk about a specific portion of the population with such harsh judgements, then no one is going to assume you apply those same judgements to the larger population unless you say so. Otherwise, most people assume why else would you specify that specific portion?

You might now think that this thread already specified that population, but you come in here saying you "hate gays for..." which implies you hate gays for very specific reasons specific to that specific group of people. (Following?) If you don't want that implication, then you must make a disclaimer that "you hate gays for.... but you hate people in general for those kind of things." So people walk away with the impression that you hate immoral things rather than you hate gay people. Actually if you don't want people to think you hate gay people, then don't say you hate gay people. Say, you hate these immoral things. Say, gay people have been seen doing these immoral things. Say, people tend to fallaciously generalize that if a few different gay people do these immoral things than all do them. That is why gay people have a bad and hugely unfair rap. Then, people won't think you are saying you hate gays.

Today's lesson: how to more effectively communicate your ideas and how not to make generalizations.

Now, I've said my peace. I've spoken strictly about the logic utilized, which I only find to be a needed disclaimer because everyone so far who has claimed logical indifference has in fact failed to keep their emotions in check. If anyone wants to argue that, then you have a major blindspot and you're totally off-topic. If you want to deal with logic solely, then deal with the logic solely.

PS @KINGoftheAMAZONS, I totally relished in hearing how you speak. :tongue:


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

saintless said:


> @_INTJellectual_ -
> 
> If you weren't trying to state that gays are more immoral or inferior to heterosexuals, then you largely messed up in attempt to communicate whatever idea you do hold about gay people.
> 
> ...


Thank you saintless! You reiterated what I didn't have the cognitive coherence to convey in my vocal message early this morning :kitteh:.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Thank you saintless! You reiterated what I didn't have the cognitive coherence to convey in my vocal message early this morning :kitteh:.


I agree that @saintless really explained well the application of distinctions in arguments and how they are perceived / what they insinuate. It's a good point to remember.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> How do you feel the statistics sit then? More masculine gay men & feminine lesbians out there or more feminine gay men & masculine lesbians out there? Why do you think you think that people with attraction to the same sex often adopt mannerisms from the opposite sex? Do you think same sex couplings who act like their own sex are more genuine?
> 
> The reason why I brought this point up is because when a women tells me she likes women but pursues women who look like men or are very masculine, I'm not so sure anymore. I can respect masculine gay men & feminine lesbian women because I feel like they genuinely feel attraction to the same sex.



I don't even know where to start with this post..................I just don't know what else to add, that other LGBT people have already said, to explain more in a way you will understand. I don't know if you are actually struggling to understand or just wanting to prove your point is right.


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

Nice thread topic  Reminds me of this;

Race is a feminist issue | SPARK a Movement


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

INTJellectual said:


> Here's my view and opinion on feminism, gay, lesbian, and transgender.
> 
> I'm not against them. It's about what they do rather than what they are that I'm against. I let them what they are, it's about oppression, inequality, and being obnoxious that I'm against. Homosexuals exist even in the animal world, and I've seen it on National Geographic how these same sex species are mating. But some strict religious communities view homosexuality as being abnormal and condemnatory.
> 
> ...


There are actually more religious/secular self-identifying feminists from Middle East, India, Africa, etc than you realize (they don't have to only be an internationalized organization, they can range from students, civil rights activists, etc). Just because their roles are invisible from parts of mainstream media, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And there's a lot of discriminatory statements against LGBT that you've stated in your post, that I think are addressed and pointed out by others already. (Haven't read the whole thread though).


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

Oh by the way, speaking of feminism from Africa, Asia and about addressing transgender issues worldwide, here's a recommended read:

Wieringa (2011) Women-loving-women in Africa and Asia, Trans/Sign Report of Research Findings, The Ford Foundation, URL: http://www.isiswomen.org/phocadownload/print/isispub/Women-Loving-Women.pdf

Used it as a source in a short academic thesis I wrote about the issues faced by transgenders when it comes to international security/security studies. There are some useful significant information etc


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

killerB said:


> I don't even know where to start with this post..................I just don't know what else to add, that other LGBT people have already said, to explain more in a way you will understand. I don't know if you are actually struggling to understand or just wanting to prove your point is right.


The third option, curiosity. As we have already discovered both points of view are yet unproven to be fact. I am curious, nothing more.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> The third option, curiosity. As we have already discovered both points of view are yet unproven to be fact. I am curious, nothing more.


If you're looking for proven facts, then don't consult an online forum. Do some research. You will learn a lot more.

However, the difference between you and most other people here is that you are making claims based upon your "intuitive reasoning" where everyone else is speaking from past experience (which does not include media outlets as I suspect a lot of your reasoning is baed on) or from actually doing research. Of course, not everyone can show you their research given a lot of mine, as an example, are in textbooks I cannot upload to the internet. However, I have been around these parts long enough to know who often speaks with such credibility and when they're doing so.


----------



## SophiaScorpia (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm having such deep learning on this stuff. Hmm. Thank you everyone for giving me sapient insights. Now, I understand more about LGBT.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> The third option, curiosity. As we have already discovered both points of view are yet unproven to be fact. I am curious, nothing more.



A persons sexuality, is not up for debate. My feelings of how I perceive myself as Queer Femme lesbian, is not up to anyone to decide if they are legit. A transgendered persons feelings of being in the wrong body is not up to anyone to find 'proven'. We talk of who we are, our feelings and souls. There is no scientific proof. These are feelings, and not all feelings are proven, or measurable, or scientific. It is not up to LGBT people to have to prove anything at all to others. We are not freaks, we are not sick, we don't need to prove that we can raise children effectively or that we love our partners the same as straight people love theirs.

Curiosty, I can understand, I opened a thread on the subject for those interested to understand about LGBT people. I don't think most of us would be offended to answer questions asked respectfully. You won't be getting a proven anything, however, so again, LGBT people can only offer their views of who they are, and who they love. That will have to be enough proof.

Not everything in life can be proven.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> How do you feel the statistics sit then? More masculine gay men & feminine lesbians out there or more feminine gay men & masculine lesbians out there? Why do you think you think that people with attraction to the same sex often adopt mannerisms from the opposite sex? Do you think same sex couplings who act like their own sex are more genuine?
> 
> The reason why I brought this point up is because when a women tells me she likes women but pursues women who look like men or are very masculine, I'm not so sure anymore. I can respect masculine gay men & feminine lesbian women because I feel like they genuinely feel attraction to the same sex.


Well, as anyone tells you, attraction can vary widely among many people. Some people like spontaneous types, some people like emotional types, and etc... 

Many studies show that women in developed countries have an attraction to men with feminine features. This has given inspiration to a large amount of feminine-faced pop stars like Justin Bieber. Never mind that their music is horrible. They sell music because they sell what is sexy to many women. It can even be argued that's why men developed a habit of shaving their face in many countries. Hairiness is an indicator of testosterone, and shaving is a way for someone to look like they have less hair.

The point is, as a woman, you can like someone who is excessively feminine and still be straight, just like you can like someone who is excessively masculine and still be gay.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

But not Bisexuals? (I kid)


----------



## Rakshasa (May 26, 2012)

I'll get your plaque ready. It will read "Has succeeded in basic human decency in a moderate degree."

And to Falling Leaves (I know not how to tag another member in my post) I appreciate you taking the time to say that. As a person who's always done his best to espouse the virtues of freedom, and equality I struggled with a bit of homophobia for a bit. Lesbians made me uncomfortable and I hated myself for that fact for quite some time. So I'm glad you brought up that interesting point. 

Why can't you say that you support every sentient creature that doesn't cause suffering to it's fellows? May be a bit wordier, but far more inclusive.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Rakshasa said:


> I'll get your plaque ready. It will read "Has succeeded in basic human decency in a moderate degree."
> 
> And to Falling Leaves (I know not how to tag another member in my post) I appreciate you taking the time to say that. As a person who's always done his best to espouse the virtues of freedom, and equality I struggled with a bit of homophobia for a bit. Lesbians made me uncomfortable and I hated myself for that fact for quite some time. So I'm glad you brought up that interesting point.
> 
> Why can't you say that you support every sentient creature that doesn't cause suffering to it's fellows? May be a bit wordier, but far more inclusive.



That's nice; you seem to have jumped in late and assumed your sarcastic remark to have due relevance. Sorry; if you were here prior, you would have seen this thread as a parody and anti-thread (of the same name) to one which was originally closed due to its derailment and gross generalizations. 

It is no secret that these groups often have a hard time with merging in mainstream, and as such, the thread still has relevance.

Maybe your reliance on the post without knowing the backstory or reading any of the comments inbetween highlight a problem of yours; maybe that plaque has yet to be earned by even yourself.


----------



## Rakshasa (May 26, 2012)

Okay, please forgive my ignorance. I do have a few questions, though... If this is what you say it is, then that would mean that my sentiment is the same as the one that motivated this thread, yes? If that is the case then my comment is in accord with the anti-thread? Also you insinuate responding to the OP, and not the comments in the thread, is an indecent act; despite the fact that that is generally the purpose of an OP?


----------

