As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

15253555758101

Posts

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ I think your logic circuits got some water on them or something.

    Like what is up with this? This isn't even pedantic it's just... like, inaccurate.

    Do you know someone personally who annoyingly insists on bisexuality while exhibiting no behavior that indicates the fact? Because I can't see where the idea of combating a vast web of bi-lies comes from.

    Like yeah if someone says they are bi and then only fucks either men or women then I may say "pssh they totally aren't they just think it's interesting" but... like... that isn't a philosophical position. That's shit-talking about an annoying person. And it's not even necessarily accurate shit-talking. For all I know they do all their making out with a gender I haven't seen them macking on behind closed doors!


    Also on just a totally different note: never, ever, ever use fMRI to prove a thing, yet. Even the good fMRI studies aren't showing causality, and they're not all good. It's super overused for simple "x lit up therefore we can read minds" studies.

    He thinks he's using the modern psychological principles of behaviorism, without actually understanding behaviorism or the fact that it's about as modern as Freudian theory at this point.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Yeah I got that impression.

    I mean though, even goddamn behaviorists accepted a colloquial discussion of goals and thoughts, they just didn't think it was effective to attempt scientific investigation.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    Edit: LadyM - So weird seeing you outside of the Pony thread!

    I'm everywheeeeere.

    And I find GLBT issues and their interplay with concepts of masculinity/femininity fascinating. *puts on reading glasses over hipster glasses*

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I think that they'll put it in the platform and Obama just won't talk about it and if he's forced to he'll do what politicians are best at.

    And I am perfectly okay with that.

    Also, the VP wouldn't come out and say something that wasn't passed by the Oval Office anyway.

    This is Biden we're talking about.

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I think that they'll put it in the platform and Obama just won't talk about it and if he's forced to he'll do what politicians are best at.

    And I am perfectly okay with that.

    Also, the VP wouldn't come out and say something that wasn't passed by the Oval Office anyway.

    This is Biden we're talking about.

    Is there another example of policy change that he's done this in over the last four years that I'm forgetting? I think people misunderestimate Biden a lot.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I think that they'll put it in the platform and Obama just won't talk about it and if he's forced to he'll do what politicians are best at.

    And I am perfectly okay with that.

    Also, the VP wouldn't come out and say something that wasn't passed by the Oval Office anyway.

    This is Biden we're talking about.

    Is there another example of policy change that he's done this in over the last four years that I'm not forgetting? I think people misunderestimate Biden a lot.

    He's just really good at unintentionally saying things the wrong way.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    True, I think though, that the only person at the top of the party who is against this is Obama, and I don't think he honestly cares that much.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    when does he keep saying it?

    when did he change his mind?

    I've read his column regularly for years and all the advice he gives to bi people is the same he gives to other people. He doesn't believe bis are fake or at least he makes an effort to treat bis that write him as legitimately bisexual people

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    So basically to claim bisexuality, you must have consecrated your sexuality choice by having slept with both a man and a woman. You can't be a person who is fully interested in sleeping with the same sex and the opposite sex, just simply hasn't had the opportunity yet. You apparently must then maintain your bisexuality karma balance by sleeping equally with men and women.

    People can be homo/hetero/bi sexual prior to engaging in the act of sex.

    For homo/hetero/bi sexual to be meaningful labels, they must be discernable through external observations of a persons actions.

    If we do not want "fucking" to be the external observation then, ok, let's include
    - Flirting
    - Romantic pursuit
    - Discernment of arousal via FMRI


    Again, my worry is that self-descriptions that are only beholden to a person's own self narrative are incredibly useless terms. For the terms to be meaningful, they have to be evidenced by some external action that is in principle knowable to another individual.

    So, at the very least, bisexual means that if we put you in an FMRI and show you pictures of Jessica Alba and joseph gordon-levitt, your "i wanna fuck that" zone lights up equally for both.

    This is completely wrong. Labels come from self identification. You're just applying your arbitrary qualifications to what is an extremely complicated spectrum and you're coming across as profoundly ignorant and offensive, on the off chance that you're not plainly aware of this.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    _J_ I must say, I am really disappointed with you. You have been posting some of the most offensive things in the last few pages that I have read on these forums for a long time. You have constantly implied that bisexuals are liars for no real reason. If someone tells you they like something, they don't have to prove it to you, you silly goose. To think them a liar because of a lack of evidence is highly insulting.

    I used to describe myself as bisexual, though now I find the term pansexual more appropriate. Because for me, what does or doesn't dangle between your legs has fuck all to do with whether I am going to fall in love with you. And once I love a person, their genitals only really matter in the case of procreation/adoption.

    That being said, I have had no sexual experiences with non-females, nor plan to. Are you going to sit there and call me a liar? I have been in love with a man before., but he did not share my feelings. Am I still a liar. How many dicks do I have to suck before you are convinced I'm not full of shit? 5? 10? 20? Please enlighten me. Because heaven forbid I don't confirm to your, incorrect, interpretation of what bisexuality means.

    Also, seriously, “buy them lobster?” Are you suggesting I just go and rape some guy to prove myself? Or are you going to buy me a prostitute, and claim that I am not bi because I shy away from sex with a prostitute? Do you even think about your metaphors before typing them?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Not to mention how far do you have to go before fulfilling _J_'s sexuality requirement. Does it count if you just cuddle? Kiss? Wear protection? Hand/Fingerjobs?

    _J_ if I glomp you are we both bisexual now.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    glomp?

    i hope that's an onomatopeia

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    glomp?

    i hope that's an onomatopeia

    It's like a 'chomp' but you take out your dentures first.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    glomp?

    i hope that's an onomatopeia

    It's a ridiculously large hug from my understanding.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    aww. I thought it was an overly open-mouthed, unexpected snogging.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    aww. I thought it was an overly open-mouthed, unexpected snogging.

    my girlfriends and I used to use 'glomp' to refer to a kiss of some form that was open mouthed. Usually on the cheek or neck. It basically was like biting without teeth.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    A glomp is a surprise hug, usually something of an affectionate tackle.

    If we just started glomping everyone then everyone would be bi.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    You have constantly implied that bisexuals are liars for no real reason. If someone tells you they like something, they don't have to prove it to you, you silly goose. To think them a liar because of a lack of evidence is highly insulting.

    Just to be clear, I nowhere in this thread used the words "liar", "lie", "deception", etc.

    Those words only appear in the posts of persons who are misconstruing what I actually wrote.

    To accuse someone of lying is to accuse them of willful deception. Nowhere in this thread did I accuse anyone of willfully deceiving another person. I do not take persons to be willfully deceiving other persons by means of their self-descriptions.

    What I have said is:
    1) Some persons use words incorrectly.
    2) Some conceptual frameworks are problematic.
    3) The language of sex/gender is notoriously vague, and so causes some problems.

    Again, I am not accusing any particular person, or group of persons, of willful deception.

    I am saying, however, that if a particular person self-identifies as heterosexual, yet only ever engages in sexual activities / pursuits that would more properly be described as homosexual, then the person is using the label incorrectly.

    That is not to say that they are "lying". It is to say that they are "mistaken".

    There is a difference between lying, and being mistaken.

    You are most welcome to attack my arguments, and ask questions, and accuse me of being a silly goose. That is fine. But please do not accuse me of something I did not do. I nowhere accused anyone of lying. So, please, do not say that I did.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    What I have said is:
    1) Some persons use words incorrectly.
    2) Some conceptual frameworks are problematic.
    3) The language of sex/gender is notoriously vague, and so causes some problems.

    1) This is obvious, you have shown a complete lack of understanding on what the term bisexual means. The only one who is using the term incorrectly is you.

    2) True, but not really an issue here.

    3) This is also true, and relevant to the thread, but not some much regarding bisexuality as we are discussing it.

    I mean, seriously can you even provide one credible source to back up your claim of what the definition of bisexuality is? Because everywhere I look, someone who is attracted to both sexes is all that is required. I would think if you were going to start accusing people of misusing a word you would have the sense to show why your definition is the one we should accept.

    And again _J_, how many dicks do I have to suck before I you will stop saying I am "mistaken" if I refer to my self as bisexual.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Man I don't understand that then.

    What exactly is your hypothetical population?

    Because I just, and this is just me, I just sort of assume if someone says "yeah I'm gay" I assume they like to fuck the gender that most resembles them.

    Your clarification that they aren't really if they mostly fuck the other gender is super great and all but

    what fucking group of secret fake-out sexy people are you addressing here? When has this issue appeared?

    Edit:

    And even then, you do ignore say the population of people who may be gay for pay, and terrible at picking up ladies. Mostly sexual encounters are gay, but they're mercenaries, not attracted.

    You have to accept that at some point we need to posit cognitive states, and take them at face value. If you want to start a scientific investigation we can start controlling for nuisance variables and all that jazz but you aren't even remotely approaching that, you're just sort of aggressively insisting on a tautological point that follows from a premise that doesn't work very well.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    Because everywhere I look, someone who is attracted to both sexes is all that is required.

    Sure. However, I think we disagree about what "attraction" is, with respect to sexuality.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    And again _J_, how many dicks do I have to suck before I you will stop saying I am "mistaken" if I refer to my self as bisexual.

    Ok, I'll take the bait.

    To be bisexual you would have to suck dick AND eat pussy.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sure. However, I think we disagree about what "attraction" is, with respect to sexuality.

    Do you think that someone with a desire will always be able to fulfill that desire?

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Bandable wrote: »
    And again _J_, how many dicks do I have to suck before I you will stop saying I am "mistaken" if I refer to my self as bisexual.

    Ok, I'll take the bait.

    To be bisexual you would have to suck dick AND eat pussy.
    Are you aware this is not actually how sexuality works?

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Bandable wrote: »
    And again _J_, how many dicks do I have to suck before I you will stop saying I am "mistaken" if I refer to my self as bisexual.

    Ok, I'll take the bait.

    To be bisexual you would have to suck dick AND eat pussy.

    I can tell you right now, it can't be done. Better men than I have tried and choked to death.

    Oh wait, did you mean like, one after the other? Because yeah plenty of people do that.

    The reason people are asking you about who you think is lying is because you're acting as though secret-non-bi people are an actual relevant population that you need to ferret out.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sure. However, I think we disagree about what "attraction" is, with respect to sexuality.

    Do you think that someone with a desire will always be able to fulfill that desire?

    I think that attraction is causally efficacious in some sort of activity. The attraction / desire causes some sort of action to occur. While those actions may not result in a fulfillment of desire, the desire does cause some sort of activity in response to itself.

    One of the problems is that we can discern hierarchical comparisons of desire, in terms of "more" or "less". A particular individual may be "more" attracted to boobs than they are to penises, or whatever. To this we have to ask if it is "more" or "differently", so we'd have to suss out how to compare those different desires.

    Another problem is that we have to assess the categorical / class orientation of hetero/homo/bi sexuality as distinct from attraction to particular members of a category / class. Does a person desire "boobs" or "those boobs", "cocks" or "that cock"?

    When we start to assess those sexual labels at this level, it becomes far more complicated to discern exactly what a particular label means.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    The action that occurs is called an erection, _J_.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The reason people are asking you about who you think is lying is because you're acting as though secret-non-bi people are an actual relevant population that you need to ferret out.

    I have no idea why anyone would construe my posts in that way.

    I'm just trying to discern what the damn words mean.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Bandable wrote: »
    Because everywhere I look, someone who is attracted to both sexes is all that is required.

    Sure. However, I think we disagree about what "attraction" is, with respect to sexuality.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but your definition of "attraction" seems to require that the person physically acts out said attraction. People have already shown how ridiculous this is because it means virgins can't call themselves homo/hetero/bisexual since they haven't acted on it yet.

    So, what is your definition of attraction, and why is it so different than common usage?
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sure. However, I think we disagree about what "attraction" is, with respect to sexuality.

    Do you think that someone with a desire will always be able to fulfill that desire?

    This is also a problem I am having with _J_'s posts, it doesn't take into account things like opportunity or consent. Feels a bit rapey to me. I don't really think that is his intention, but I gotta say some of his posts make me a little uncomfortable.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The action that occurs is called an erection, _J_.

    I'm obviously quite confused about the female anatomy.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    I gotta say some of his posts make me a little uncomfortable.

    I would suggest reading the words in the post, rather than the words that are not in the post.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The action that occurs is called an erection, _J_.

    I'm obviously quite confused about the female anatomy.

    Women have erectile tissue. So yes, you are.

    Incenjucar on
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    What I have said is:
    1) Some persons use words incorrectly.
    2) Some conceptual frameworks are problematic.
    3) The language of sex/gender is notoriously vague, and so causes some problems.

    It's almost like the language of sex/gender is notoriously vague because sex/gender are notoriously complex and at times vague concepts!

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    LadyM wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    What I have said is:
    1) Some persons use words incorrectly.
    2) Some conceptual frameworks are problematic.
    3) The language of sex/gender is notoriously vague, and so causes some problems.

    It's almost like the language of sex/gender is notoriously vague because sex/gender are notoriously complex and at times vague concepts!

    This confuses the way we talk for the way things are.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    LadyM wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    What I have said is:
    1) Some persons use words incorrectly.
    2) Some conceptual frameworks are problematic.
    3) The language of sex/gender is notoriously vague, and so causes some problems.

    It's almost like the language of sex/gender is notoriously vague because sex/gender are notoriously complex and at times vague concepts!

    This confuses the way we talk for the way things are.

    Your assumption of this confusion is unfounded. Sex, gender, and attraction are complex and vague, in actuality.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Bandable wrote: »
    I gotta say some of his posts make me a little uncomfortable.

    I would suggest reading the words in the post, rather than the words that are not in the post.

    I admit, the creepiness is coming not directly from what you are saying, but taking what you are saying to it's conclusion. For example, implying its just as easy to get sex as buying a lobster dinner is a little fucked up, hence the uncomfortableness.

    Again, please show us where you are getting this definition of attraction that you are using. I find I am unable to find one that requires the physical act of sex to qualify the term. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to disagree that someone can be attracted to someone else without tumbling under the covers. I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around why you have a problem with that usage of attraction, so please, educate us.

    I mean, what am I doing when I masturbate to pornography? Am I not attracted to the actors? Or is it only then that I can say I am attracted? If I just look at them in a magazine or video, without whipping it out and going town, I am not actually attracted? Because I can promise you that you are wrong on that, lol. Which brings up another point, plenty of self described bisexuals will use both hetero & homosexual pornography. Do they pass your bisexual test?

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to disagree that someone can be attracted to someone else without tumbling under the covers. I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around why you have a problem with that usage of attraction, so please, educate us.

    Dan Savage, at a lecture I once attended, said that bisexuality doesn't make sense for a few reasons. One of those reasons is that people tend to get married and be monogamous. He stated that it does not make sense to be married to a dude, fuck that dude, only fuck that dude, and yet still claim to be bisexual.

    I thought this made sense. If a lady only ever fucks the dude to whom she is married, then in what sense is it meaningful to say that she is bisexual?

    Then people brought up the idea that the individual could be attracted to various persons, but not fuck them. Or the issue of a person who never has sex. These positions conflicted with what Savage said, and what I thought made sense.

    So, I entertained the notion that an individual's sexuality could be meaningful and yet not acted upon. Or, I tried to answer the question, "What is it to say that one is attracted to a class of persons?" Usually, we take attraction of a sexual nature to be somehow manifest in some sort of action / activity. If a college guy self-identifies as heterosexual he tends to try to fuck ladies. But the sentiment of the thread seems to suggest that is a problematic standard.

    Instead, the idea seems to be that one's self-identification with hetero/homo/bi sexuality in no way entails any sort of external manifestation. Acting upon the desire is optional, so to speak.

    However, that is a problematic notion. Consider a hypothetical guy who claims to be sexually attracted to a lady. The lady is single, expresses interest in him, actively pursues him, and tells him that she wants to fuck him. But the hypothetical guy says, "no". He repeatedly states that he is attracted to her, but never acts upon that desire despite her willingness and availability.

    I think we'd consider that guy to be quite odd. But at the same time, the arguments being offered support his self-identification. He can claim to be attracted to a particular lady, never act upon that attraction, and yet still be meaningfully attracted to her.

    That seems odd. It seems like we would expect the guy to act upon his desires, for actions to follow from his attraction.

    Yet this is the very sentiment persons are arguing against with Savage's monogamous bisexual example.

    That's what I'm trying to puzzle out. Is it meaningful for a person to claim attraction to X, and yet never act in an attracted way towards that X?

    That's what I was going for with the steak / lobster example. If one claims to desire lobster, and yet never eats lobster, that would be odd. Someone suggested that perhaps lobster is too expensive, or not available, or something. So I modified the example by stating that the lobster is available, paid for, and the person is entirely capable of eating it.

    Persons took this to mean that I was advocating rape, for reasons I do not understand.

    Hopefully that all made some sense. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope that it gives you some idea of what I've been talking about, and the problem I'm trying to work through.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    I thought Dan Savage recently wrote an argument against monogamous marriages.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Also the monogamy breaking attraction makes no sense - look at regular heterosexual monogamous married couples. If a guy is married to a woman and never cheats on her, are you saying it's impossible that he is attracted to other women?

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Also the monogamy breaking attraction makes no sense - look at regular heterosexual monogamous married couples. If a guy is married to a woman and never cheats on her, are you saying it's impossible that he is attracted to other women?

    You didn't read the post, did you?

    In what sense is attraction meaningful if it is not acted upon? Or, can a person claim to be attracted to X, while X is available, and yet not pursue X?

This discussion has been closed.