If you're a blind straight guy, you should be perfectly happy to get blowjobs from guys because all that matters is that their dick isn't involved. Mouths are mouths, don't be a dirty homophobe.
It would make me homophobic if I somehow managed to get a blowjob from a guy, enjoyed it, then later discovered it was a guy. Because let's review: I enjoyed something, then upon discovering what it was, reviewed that event to say I did not enjoy it.
So enjoying something, then upon discovering what it was reviewing that event to say that you did not enjoy it is something you obviously think is silly and misguided.
From this we can conclude that you are a pedophile, or at least slightly pedophilic.
I don't think I need to spell out the logical reasoning.
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
Oh yes, I obviously think transgenderism is on equal level with STDs when it comes to what happens to your body. Obviously my dick will fall off if I have sex with a post-op transgender woman.
It has nothing to do with the fact that both share common traits ie: You should know this stuff before you get intimate regardless of whether or not you have a relationship with the person in question and they both tend to be relatively rare conditions to come across.
Sipex on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
If you're a blind straight guy, you should be perfectly happy to get blowjobs from guys because all that matters is that their dick isn't involved. Mouths are mouths, don't be a dirty homophobe.
It would make me homophobic if I somehow managed to get a blowjob from a guy, enjoyed it, then later discovered it was a guy. Because let's review: I enjoyed something, then upon discovering what it was, reviewed that event to say I did not enjoy it.
So enjoying something, then upon discovering what it was reviewing that event to say that you did not enjoy it is something you obviously think is silly and misguided.
From this we can conclude that you are a pedophile, or at least slightly pedophilic.
I don't think I need to spell out the logical reasoning.
Yes. Apparently from all those children that have sucked my dick that you somehow know about. Or something. Anyway I'm sure there are a lot of people out there unknowingly having sex with children.
It seems like you think my examples are talking about the situation being the exact same. They aren't. I'm talking about the reactions.
Then talk about the reactions, not the act that is causing the reactions. That's not how you worded your analogy.
That's the thing that has me arguing about this. People want to say their objection is one thing, but they keep using language (intentionally or not) that suggests that their objection is something else.
The whole pork eating Muslim metaphor is an interesting one. I certainly agree that in many circumstances, it is a person's responsibility to look after their own dietary restrictions. My girlfriend will often make sure to tell a burger maker that she is allergic to mustard, so to please be careful not to prepare the burger on a surface where mustard goes.
Now, let's continue that metaphor, however. The pork-eating is a preference, rather than an allergy, which more directly relates to the topic at hand, so let's stick with it. Most people here can agree that a religious prohibition, when not carried forth to infringe on other people's rights, is acceptable, right? If you met a perfectly nice Muslim man who said, "I got no problem with you being gay, but it is against my religion for me to be gay," that is just as fine as a Muslim man who said, "I will not eat pork because religiously I am opposed to it," right? Ok... So...
One of the points being argued around and not addressed is what we can commonly expect, due to the overwhelming evidence of experience. If our Muslim goes to an ice cream shop and orders a hot fudge Sunday, his experience tells him that he does not have to ask whether there is any pork in the ice cream. Very rarely would you hear of someone who put bacon on a standard Sunday.
Now our Muslim man goes to a club which is generally heterosexual-normal in its populace. This particular individual's personal religious beliefs are that he should not have sex with someone who is not a biological woman. He doesn't particularly share the prohibition against premarital sex though. It is certainly an individual's right to decide what personal philosophies they follow. It is the common experience in the United States, for instance, that the overwhelming majority of people are not transgendered. He meets what appears to be a fine-looking young woman and after an evening of dancing, he asks her to come home with him. Is it suddenly his responsibility to check to make sure that there is no pork in his ice cream, metaphorically?
I think that at this point in our society is not. Many of you are arguing that it is. You should be arguing that you want us to socially reach a point where it is. It, however, is absolutely not at this point.
Replace "the same biological gender" with "whoever the hell they prefer"...
Well I think they should be very clear on that. The argument seems to be that transitioning is somehow "truly" impossible on a fundamental level; that a transitioned transgendered individual is irrevocably their birth sex forever and ever amen and therefore to enter into a relationship with one is to enter into a relationship outside their preferred sex.
If they were like, "cis-gendered people only!" because say, they want to have biological children or they like working penises or whatever bias they have, well, whatever. But to base it on "they're not really what they present as" is just erroneous.
I mean, gender dysmorphia is pretty well-defined by now, and a lot of work has been done to deconstruct gender and sex as regards transgenderism. To disregard all of that work for gut feelings is fine, but I would acknowledge that I was disregarding it for gut feelings instead of saying "but it ain't so!"
As I said, a lot of people seem to be feeling attacked for not being accepting enough of having gay sex in their personal lives, and I just don't think that follows from the arguments being made.
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
That's completely irrelevant.
Gender is not race.
Neither is sex.
It's not irrelevant! My sexuality has certain needs and I simply can't get it up for anything other than a purebred.
Also, I'm having trouble thinking of any other completely invisible genetic trait that affects no one that people would end a relationship over.
I mean, does the relationship end if they have an XXX chromosome and therefore aren't a true XX woman?
I dunno. The only thing I can think of is if both parents are carriers for a certain terrible disease and know it, so split up to avoid having children that might have said disease.
I don't think that ever really happens, but I could imagine it being possible.
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
That's completely irrelevant.
Gender is not race.
Neither is sex.
It's not irrelevant! My sexuality has certain needs and I simply can't get it up for anything other than a purebred.
That's not a logical argument, but rather a restating of your initial flawed analogy.
Also, I'm having trouble thinking of any other completely invisible genetic trait that affects no one that people would end a relationship over.
I mean, does the relationship end if they have an XXX chromosome and therefore aren't a true XX woman?
I dunno. The only thing I can think of is if both parents are carriers for a certain terrible disease and know it, so split up to avoid having children that might have said disease.
I don't think that ever really happens, but I could imagine it being possible.
How is a terrible disease not something that affects others?
Quid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Would anybody else be much more emotionally damaged if they found out the person they loved kept something like this than physically put off?
Replace "the same biological gender" with "whoever the hell they prefer"...
Well I think they should be very clear on that. The argument seems to be that transitioning is somehow "truly" impossible on a fundamental level; that a transitioned transgendered individual is irrevocably their birth sex forever and ever amen and therefore to enter into a relationship with one is to enter into a relationship outside their preferred sex.
If they were like, "cis-gendered people only!" because say, they want to have biological children or they like working penises or whatever bias they have, well, whatever. But to base it on "they're not really what they present as" is just erroneous.
I mean, gender dysmorphia is pretty well-defined by now, and a lot of work has been done to deconstruct gender and sex as regards transgenderism. To disregard all of that work for gut feelings is fine, but I would acknowledge that I was disregarding it for gut feelings instead of saying "but it ain't so!"
As I said, a lot of people seem to be feeling attacked for not being accepting enough of having gay sex in their personal lives, and I just don't think that follows from the arguments being made.
I want to be really clear here, because I've been trying to be careful about my wording. I'm not saying an MTF isn't a woman. I'm not saying that they are not mentally a woman. I'm saying that their physical body alone will always be in some way male, because that is how it started out.
But as stated, an MTF's body is just a male body with alterations. Why isn't that a male body?
What part of it is male? Perhaps you could elaborate on what makes a body male or female outside of genitalia/reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics and we could go from there.
Also, I'm having trouble thinking of any other completely invisible genetic trait that affects no one that people would end a relationship over.
I mean, does the relationship end if they have an XXX chromosome and therefore aren't a true XX woman?
I dunno. The only thing I can think of is if both parents are carriers for a certain terrible disease and know it, so split up to avoid having children that might have said disease.
I don't think that ever really happens, but I could imagine it being possible.
How is a terrible disease not something that affects others?
Clearly it is. However, only under the conditions that the two people have children, and even then it's not a sure thing that they'll have it.
I'm not particularly invested in this question, just tried to come up with something since you asked.
Not all facets of attraction are due to visual aesthetics.
Could you maybe give me an example of another invisible genetic trait that doesn't affect anyone that people leave others over?
Not off the top of my head. Does that make me lose?
No, but it's why I find this particular hang up strange and I've been trying to think of another one.
Seriously guys, you're getting way too defensive.
We're getting defensive because you say "Yeah, its cool" but then imply that we're completely batshit insane (*exaggerated) for it because we can't come up with a better reason than "I'm not comfortable with the idea"
Also, on the other topic, a good example would be age:
You're in the middle of it, things are getting hot and then she goes "Wait, I lied, I'm not 19, I'm only 15"
Yes, you have complete total rights to stop right there. No, you're not a dick for doing so.
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
That's completely irrelevant.
Gender is not race.
Neither is sex.
It's not irrelevant! My sexuality has certain needs and I simply can't get it up for anything other than a purebred.
That's not a logical argument, but rather a restating of your initial flawed analogy.
Good to know, since that is the same justification that has been given for not wanting to sleep with a transsexual. Attraction is irrational, after all, so I don't see what logic has to do with it.
Also, I'm having trouble thinking of any other completely invisible genetic trait that affects no one that people would end a relationship over.
I mean, does the relationship end if they have an XXX chromosome and therefore aren't a true XX woman?
I dunno. The only thing I can think of is if both parents are carriers for a certain terrible disease and know it, so split up to avoid having children that might have said disease.
I don't think that ever really happens, but I could imagine it being possible.
That's not really equivalent.
I know if I were blindfolded and having sex with someone only to have the blindfold removed and discover David Hasselhoff smiling up at me I'd lose wood faster than a California forest in wildfire season. It's a visceral reaction wherein, however good the Hoff's bits feel, that is not the image I want associated with the sensation. From this I can completely understand why someone would have a similar visceral revulsion to the idea of a sex partner who feels and looks like their preferred partner, but internally they conceptualize as 'mannish' or 'womanish' for no outward reason.
Despite understanding that, I don't understand what would cause that response. I mean, my revulsion to discovering myself hip deep in Hoff is purely sensory. If I suddenly found my partner had an STD I'd have a similar reaction out of fear for my health. I can't really think of any conceptual factor which would produce the same reaction in me as actually experiencing in a sensory fashion that my partner was not of my preferred variety.
You're in the middle of it, things are getting hot and then she goes "Wait, I lied, I'm not 19, I'm only 15"
Yes, you have complete total rights to stop right there. No, you're not a dick for doing so.
And yet the reason is not going to be, funnily enough, because it had any effect on your sexual attraction. It's because its illegal, and suddenly quite possibly not consensual in a real fashion.
Bama, I'd sincerely like to see your response to what I said last page. I generally find that we're pretty polar in viewpoints, and expecting that you'll disagree with me would sincerely and respectfully like to read it. Sorry to interrupt the current back and forth.
So if mid-coitus my partner reveals herself to have multiracial ancestry it's totally cool if I bail? and I don't mean "cool" as in "having the right to do so."
That's completely irrelevant.
Gender is not race.
Neither is sex.
It's not irrelevant! My sexuality has certain needs and I simply can't get it up for anything other than a purebred.
That's not a logical argument, but rather a restating of your initial flawed analogy.
Good to know, since that is the same justification that has been given for not wanting to sleep with a transsexual. Attraction is irrational, after all, so I don't see what logic has to do with it.
Wow. In your head, everyone else who disagrees with you is a massive bigot, right? Homophobic, racist, sexist pigs.
You haven't addressed anything people are actually saying for pages and pages.
But as stated, an MTF's body is just a male body with alterations. Why isn't that a male body?
What part of it is male? Perhaps you could elaborate on what makes a body male or female outside of genitalia/reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics and we could go from there.
I don't think there's any specific part that makes you male - though I mean, I could say "chromosomes!" and that would suffice here, I think - but I don't see how you can take a body which is undeniably male, cut a few parts off and add a few things*, and say it's not male any more. It is an altered male body.
*Super simplified, I know there's hormone injections and a bunch of other stuff
We're getting defensive because you say "Yeah, its cool" but then imply that we're completely batshit insane (*exaggerated) for it because we can't come up with a better reason than "I'm not comfortable with the idea"
I've implied fuck all. People have assumed a lot of meaning in my statements that simply aren't there. If you think I'm implying shit rather than trying to have an honest discussion, then seriously, hit the god damn report button already and stop whining in this thread because it's annoying.
Also, on the other topic, a good example would be age:
You're in the middle of it, things are getting hot and then she goes "Wait, I lied, I'm not 19, I'm only 15"
Yes, you have complete total rights to stop right there. No, you're not a dick for doing so.
A person's age can have horrific negative effects depending on yours and local laws. XY chromosome not so much.
If you're a blind straight guy, you should be perfectly happy to get blowjobs from guys because all that matters is that their dick isn't involved. Mouths are mouths, don't be a dirty homophobe.
It would make me homophobic if I somehow managed to get a blowjob from a guy, enjoyed it, then later discovered it was a guy. Because let's review: I enjoyed something, then upon discovering what it was, reviewed that event to say I did not enjoy it.
So enjoying something, then upon discovering what it was reviewing that event to say that you did not enjoy it is something you obviously think is silly and misguided.
From this we can conclude that you are a pedophile, or at least slightly pedophilic.
I don't think I need to spell out the logical reasoning.
Yes. Apparently from all those children that have sucked my dick that you somehow know about. Or something. Anyway I'm sure there are a lot of people out there unknowingly having sex with children.
You said that if you got a blowjob from a guy without knowing it was a guy, and liked it, then you're probably slightly gay.
It follows that you also believe that if you got a blowjob from a 12-year old without knowing it was a 12-year old, and liked it, then you're probably slightly pedophilic.
Not all facets of attraction are due to visual aesthetics.
Could you maybe give me an example of another invisible genetic trait that doesn't affect anyone that people leave others over?
Not off the top of my head. Does that make me lose?
No, but it's why I find this particular hang up strange and I've been trying to think of another one.
Seriously guys, you're getting way too defensive.
I didn't come up with it, but I would consider age to be another "invisible trait". I've been physically attracted to high school girls once I was over 18, but there are laws and general "ickiness" about actually having sex with them.
See, that's fine, you're cool with my decision but it's not yours. You didn't use alarm bell setting words (Irrational is one, regardless of what you think it implies negative).
This is the same with MTF for me, except in that case I'm not comfortable with the fact that they were originally born male.
You're in the middle of it, things are getting hot and then she goes "Wait, I lied, I'm not 19, I'm only 15"
Yes, you have complete total rights to stop right there. No, you're not a dick for doing so.
Out of curiousity, does it matter if you change "19" and "15" to "30" and "26?"
Yes. Not only legally, but developmentally. The difference between a 26 and 30 year-old is minor compared to the difference of 15 to 19. That's over 20% of his/her entire life... and the important part when you actually become who you are and understand things.
I didn't come up with it, but I would consider age to be another "invisible trait". I've been physically attracted to high school girls once I was over 18, but there are laws and general "ickiness" about actually having sex with them.
That's not an invisible trait that has no effect on anyone. Going to jail is a pretty noticeable effect.
Bama, I'd sincerely like to see your response to what I said last page. I generally find that we're pretty polar in viewpoints, and expecting that you'll disagree with me would sincerely and respectfully like to read it. Sorry to interrupt the current back and forth.
Actually, my concern is more with the objection to transgendered status rather than the disclosure of it. I agree that if you pick a person in the US at random they are very likely their biological gender and sex and that a person is not unreasonable to expect that to be the case.
Now, interestingly, it is also likely that a random US citizen is not a follower of a religion that forbids or discourages sex with transgendered people, so a transgendered person would be right to assume that the person they were talking to would not have any religious objection to having sex with him. Now, I don't know what the likelyhood would be of that person having another objection to having sex with a transgendered person, and I'd be interested to see data on that.
Posts
So enjoying something, then upon discovering what it was reviewing that event to say that you did not enjoy it is something you obviously think is silly and misguided.
From this we can conclude that you are a pedophile, or at least slightly pedophilic.
I don't think I need to spell out the logical reasoning.
It has nothing to do with the fact that both share common traits ie: You should know this stuff before you get intimate regardless of whether or not you have a relationship with the person in question and they both tend to be relatively rare conditions to come across.
Not off the top of my head. Does that make me lose?
That's completely irrelevant.
Gender is not race.
Neither is sex.
Yes. Apparently from all those children that have sucked my dick that you somehow know about. Or something. Anyway I'm sure there are a lot of people out there unknowingly having sex with children.
That's the thing that has me arguing about this. People want to say their objection is one thing, but they keep using language (intentionally or not) that suggests that their objection is something else.
Now, let's continue that metaphor, however. The pork-eating is a preference, rather than an allergy, which more directly relates to the topic at hand, so let's stick with it. Most people here can agree that a religious prohibition, when not carried forth to infringe on other people's rights, is acceptable, right? If you met a perfectly nice Muslim man who said, "I got no problem with you being gay, but it is against my religion for me to be gay," that is just as fine as a Muslim man who said, "I will not eat pork because religiously I am opposed to it," right? Ok... So...
One of the points being argued around and not addressed is what we can commonly expect, due to the overwhelming evidence of experience. If our Muslim goes to an ice cream shop and orders a hot fudge Sunday, his experience tells him that he does not have to ask whether there is any pork in the ice cream. Very rarely would you hear of someone who put bacon on a standard Sunday.
Now our Muslim man goes to a club which is generally heterosexual-normal in its populace. This particular individual's personal religious beliefs are that he should not have sex with someone who is not a biological woman. He doesn't particularly share the prohibition against premarital sex though. It is certainly an individual's right to decide what personal philosophies they follow. It is the common experience in the United States, for instance, that the overwhelming majority of people are not transgendered. He meets what appears to be a fine-looking young woman and after an evening of dancing, he asks her to come home with him. Is it suddenly his responsibility to check to make sure that there is no pork in his ice cream, metaphorically?
I think that at this point in our society is not. Many of you are arguing that it is. You should be arguing that you want us to socially reach a point where it is. It, however, is absolutely not at this point.
Obviously, just because you can only think of one situation obviously means it's irrelevant because new situations NEVER arise.
Well I think they should be very clear on that. The argument seems to be that transitioning is somehow "truly" impossible on a fundamental level; that a transitioned transgendered individual is irrevocably their birth sex forever and ever amen and therefore to enter into a relationship with one is to enter into a relationship outside their preferred sex.
If they were like, "cis-gendered people only!" because say, they want to have biological children or they like working penises or whatever bias they have, well, whatever. But to base it on "they're not really what they present as" is just erroneous.
I mean, gender dysmorphia is pretty well-defined by now, and a lot of work has been done to deconstruct gender and sex as regards transgenderism. To disregard all of that work for gut feelings is fine, but I would acknowledge that I was disregarding it for gut feelings instead of saying "but it ain't so!"
As I said, a lot of people seem to be feeling attacked for not being accepting enough of having gay sex in their personal lives, and I just don't think that follows from the arguments being made.
No, but it's why I find this particular hang up strange and I've been trying to think of another one.
Seriously guys, you're getting way too defensive.
I dunno. The only thing I can think of is if both parents are carriers for a certain terrible disease and know it, so split up to avoid having children that might have said disease.
I don't think that ever really happens, but I could imagine it being possible.
Nope. Not really.
Terrible assumption all around.
That's not a logical argument, but rather a restating of your initial flawed analogy.
How is a terrible disease not something that affects others?
I want to be really clear here, because I've been trying to be careful about my wording. I'm not saying an MTF isn't a woman. I'm not saying that they are not mentally a woman. I'm saying that their physical body alone will always be in some way male, because that is how it started out.
What part of it is male? Perhaps you could elaborate on what makes a body male or female outside of genitalia/reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics and we could go from there.
Clearly it is. However, only under the conditions that the two people have children, and even then it's not a sure thing that they'll have it.
I'm not particularly invested in this question, just tried to come up with something since you asked.
We're getting defensive because you say "Yeah, its cool" but then imply that we're completely batshit insane (*exaggerated) for it because we can't come up with a better reason than "I'm not comfortable with the idea"
Also, on the other topic, a good example would be age:
You're in the middle of it, things are getting hot and then she goes "Wait, I lied, I'm not 19, I'm only 15"
Yes, you have complete total rights to stop right there. No, you're not a dick for doing so.
That's not really equivalent.
I know if I were blindfolded and having sex with someone only to have the blindfold removed and discover David Hasselhoff smiling up at me I'd lose wood faster than a California forest in wildfire season. It's a visceral reaction wherein, however good the Hoff's bits feel, that is not the image I want associated with the sensation. From this I can completely understand why someone would have a similar visceral revulsion to the idea of a sex partner who feels and looks like their preferred partner, but internally they conceptualize as 'mannish' or 'womanish' for no outward reason.
Despite understanding that, I don't understand what would cause that response. I mean, my revulsion to discovering myself hip deep in Hoff is purely sensory. If I suddenly found my partner had an STD I'd have a similar reaction out of fear for my health. I can't really think of any conceptual factor which would produce the same reaction in me as actually experiencing in a sensory fashion that my partner was not of my preferred variety.
And yet the reason is not going to be, funnily enough, because it had any effect on your sexual attraction. It's because its illegal, and suddenly quite possibly not consensual in a real fashion.
Wow. In your head, everyone else who disagrees with you is a massive bigot, right? Homophobic, racist, sexist pigs.
You haven't addressed anything people are actually saying for pages and pages.
I don't think there's any specific part that makes you male - though I mean, I could say "chromosomes!" and that would suffice here, I think - but I don't see how you can take a body which is undeniably male, cut a few parts off and add a few things*, and say it's not male any more. It is an altered male body.
*Super simplified, I know there's hormone injections and a bunch of other stuff
A person's age can have horrific negative effects depending on yours and local laws. XY chromosome not so much.
Either way I'd stop, I'm simply not comfortable with the idea of sleeping with someone who's old enough to be my mom in this example.
You said that if you got a blowjob from a guy without knowing it was a guy, and liked it, then you're probably slightly gay.
It follows that you also believe that if you got a blowjob from a 12-year old without knowing it was a 12-year old, and liked it, then you're probably slightly pedophilic.
The point is, your logic is shitty.
That's weird.
Eh, different strokes. Frankly, I'd be all over a super attractive 49 year old.
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't go looking for a woman 19 years my senior, but if I couldn't tell she was older than me then...well...hello cougar country.
I didn't come up with it, but I would consider age to be another "invisible trait". I've been physically attracted to high school girls once I was over 18, but there are laws and general "ickiness" about actually having sex with them.
This is the same with MTF for me, except in that case I'm not comfortable with the fact that they were originally born male.
Seriously. I doubt it'd evolve into anything meaningful given the age disparity, but why stop mid way through? They're hot.
Yes. Not only legally, but developmentally. The difference between a 26 and 30 year-old is minor compared to the difference of 15 to 19. That's over 20% of his/her entire life... and the important part when you actually become who you are and understand things.
That's not an invisible trait that has no effect on anyone. Going to jail is a pretty noticeable effect.
Now, interestingly, it is also likely that a random US citizen is not a follower of a religion that forbids or discourages sex with transgendered people, so a transgendered person would be right to assume that the person they were talking to would not have any religious objection to having sex with him. Now, I don't know what the likelyhood would be of that person having another objection to having sex with a transgendered person, and I'd be interested to see data on that.