Support NeoGAF

[Amakusa]

All in all this has been good thread, only 1 or 2 bans so far.
I made a comment pages back about the first time I met a transgender, I would like to correct myself after thinking about it a very long time. If the person I loved after years of being together told me she was born a male, my actions wouldn't be to dance in her blood. (the joke comment) or even be that mad. The only reason is because I can't be mad at someone I've done things with already for a number of years or even months. I would still love this person because I know this person still loves me.

I can only say this because, I know how my mind works. I eat at this Asian place 1-2 times a week. I LOVE the food, the chick Pho-ga soup is amazing! If someone walks over while I was eating and stated I was eating cat meat.... I would respond to them "Well that's some damn good pussy" It wouldn't stop me from eating there 1-2 times a week.

Now please keep in mind, if the person told me day one she was a transgender... I couldn't date her.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

All in all this has been good thread, only 1 or 2 bans so far.

More than that, heh.

 

[SapientWolf]

So. Which of the following things do you think it's an "insult" to fail to disclose to a romantic partner before becoming sexually intimate for the first time?

• Your precise ethnic status, to the best of your knowledge
• Your adoption status, if any
• Your religion (if any) and the exact degree to which you currently follow it
• Your number of previous sexual partners
• Whether you've had any sexual partners of a different gender than the current prospective one
• The age at which you became sexually active
• Any unusual sexual acts you've performed with previous partners
• Whether you've been married, and if so, how many times and to who
• How many children you have, living or dead, their ages, where they live, and who has custody of them
• Your number of abortions, if any
• Your expected level of fertility, based on currently available medical knowledge
• Having previously had a treatable STD
• Your history of having been sexually abused or raped, including when and how
• Your mental health status and history, including any diagnoses and medications
• Your economic class background
• Your current economic status, including income and net worth
• Whether you've had any cosmetic surgery for either elective or reconstructive purposes
• Whether you have had or have a family history of cancer, heart disease, or diabetes
• What substances you're allergic to
• (And on and on)

Should people just have little notepads with checkboxes like they have when you go to donate blood?

The reality is that most people would probably be happier with all kinds of disclosure about their potential sex partners before they get intimate and that most people just have sex anyway without engaging in any kind of drawn-out courtship process where they can feel this stuff out. I certainly don't think the idea of being honest in a relationship is unreasonable, but elevating trans status above and beyond every one of these other issues (some of which also have pretty severe consequences for future long-term relationships) is what many people are taking issue with here.

You're assuming that people are logical and rational. I'm gonna say that anything that's so emotionally polarizing and controversial that it spawns a 28+ page thread with lots of heated argument in it probably warrants a mention. So maybe this and tipping. Just to be on the safe side.

It's not in any way tricky to defend because logic has very little to do with feelings and sexual preferences, which do not have to be justified to anyone for any reason. They will exist regardless and must be dealt with respectfully in potential relationships. You may not like them, and you may feel certain people are close-minded, but you don't have a right to ignore their wants and desires because relationships are about what both people want, not about what's reasonable or fair.

That kind of echoes my thoughts. I don't think it's right to judge people's legal and honest expression of their sexuality, even if it precludes them from having a relationship with someone from a particular group. Especially when so much of our sexuality is in our heads, and based on ideas with no practical meaning or use.

If someone's idea of their own sexuality runs counter to sleeping with a transgendered person then I wouldn't castigate them and label them a bigot solely because of that. Even if I didn't understand or agree with that decision. That would be a form of intolerance to me.

 

[AzureNightmare]

Here is a curious fact that i love :

Did you know that dolphins make sex (including gay sex) using the respiratory hole on their heads ?


How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

Ladies and gentletrolls of GAF; I give you THIS THREAD: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399457

 

[Emitan]

Ladies and gentletrolls of GAF; I give you THIS THREAD: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399457

;_;

 

[Dead Man]

Ladies and gentletrolls of GAF; I give you THIS THREAD: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399457

I was looking for that thread to make a terrorist joke earlier. Still so bizarre after all this time.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I was looking for that thread to make a terrorist joke earlier.

 

[Dead Man]

Jerk.





Aw, I can't stay mad at you.

 

[lexi]

What happened to a whole other slew of posters that got banned?

 

[JasonUresti]

All in all this has been good thread, only 1 or 2 bans so far.
I made a comment pages back about the first time I met a transgender, I would like to correct myself after thinking about it a very long time. If the person I loved after years of being together told me she was born a male, my actions wouldn't be to dance in her blood. (the joke comment) or even be that mad. The only reason is because I can't be mad at someone I've done things with already for a number of years or even months. I would still love this person because I know this person still loves me.

I can only say this because, I know how my mind works. I eat at this Asian place 1-2 times a week. I LOVE the food, the chick Pho-ga soup is amazing! If someone walks over while I was eating and stated I was eating cat meat.... I would respond to them "Well that's some damn good pussy" It wouldn't stop me from eating there 1-2 times a week.

Now please keep in mind, if the person told me day one she was a transgender... I couldn't date her.

Interesting. This type of thinking would seem to encourage a trans gender person to not reveal the information immediately, so as to bypass a persons prejudgement of them.

As a mere casual observer, I'd like to say "well done" to the bulk of posters on both sides of this issue. Minus some trolling, purposefully hurtful comments on one side, and the somewhat over the top and misplaced calls of bigotry on the other, you've all handle this discussion with class.

 

[lexi]

Interesting. This type of thinking would seem to encourage a trans gender person to not reveal the information immediately, so as to bypass a persons prejudgement of them.

I posted about this earlier in the thread. In the majority of my experience if I told potential dates that I was trans, they do this kinda 'welllll, bout time to hit the old dusty trail' and I never hear from them again.

If I actually wait a while, they actually know me as a person by this stage, and are more likely to stick around.

 

[Dead Man]

All in all this has been good thread, only 1 or 2 bans so far.
I made a comment pages back about the first time I met a transgender, I would like to correct myself after thinking about it a very long time. If the person I loved after years of being together told me she was born a male, my actions wouldn't be to dance in her blood. (the joke comment) or even be that mad. The only reason is because I can't be mad at someone I've done things with already for a number of years or even months. I would still love this person because I know this person still loves me.

I can only say this because, I know how my mind works. I eat at this Asian place 1-2 times a week. I LOVE the food, the chick Pho-ga soup is amazing! If someone walks over while I was eating and stated I was eating cat meat.... I would respond to them "Well that's some damn good pussy" It wouldn't stop me from eating there 1-2 times a week.

Now please keep in mind, if the person told me day one she was a transgender... I couldn't date her.

I think that is the best analogy I have heard for the point that I was trying to make earlier, thanks.

 

[Gaborn]

I posted about this earlier in the thread. In the majority of my experience if I told potential dates that I was trans, they do this kinda 'welllll, bout time to hit the old dusty trail' and I never hear from them again.

If I actually wait a while, they actually know me as a person by this stage, and are more likely to stick around.

It's amazing how people's attitudes change when they get to know someone well. Consistently the best cure for ignorance is meeting real people.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

These topics are a ban trap. That's why I only read them and don't give my opinion on the subject.

 

[lexi]

These topics are a ban trap. That's why I only read them and don't give my opinion on the subject.

Is that because your opinion would be considered inflammatory in topics like this?

 

[Dead Man]

These topics are a ban trap. That's why I only read them and don't give my opinion on the subject.

Not if you are polite. A lot posters have expressed a variety of different opinions in here without being banned. It is just the hateful ones that get people in trouble.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

Is that because your opinion would be considered inflammatory in topics like this?

No. It wouldn't be inflammatory.

I just think think even if you put your response in a sensible manner you would still get banned. I know someone got banned from here posting in a thread regarding gays for saying, that everyone is entitled to their own life and do as they seem fit but personally he doesn't believe in the lifestyle and that was despite saying he had friends who are gay. And just like that he was banned.

 

[Gaborn]

No. It wouldn't be inflammatory.

I just think think even if you put your response in a sensible manner you would still get banned. I know someone got banned from here posting in a thread regarding gays for saying, that everyone is entitled to their own life and do as they seem fit but personally he doesn't believe in the lifestyle and that was despite saying he had friends he was gay. And just like that he was banned.

Well, I'd have to see the specific post but I have to say just from your description "lifestyle" is a HUGE red flag. There is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" it's a meaningless anti-gay buzz word.

I'm not going to say just from that he deserved to be banned though, but in my view that phrasing should be called out EVERY time.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

Well, I'd have to see the specific post but I have to say just from your description "lifestyle" is a HUGE red flag. There is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" it's a meaningless anti-gay buzz word.

I'm not going to say just from that he deserved to be banned though, but in my view that phrasing should be called out EVERY time.

I myself didn't know that was a red flag but I often hear a lot of gay and lesbians use the term. Hearing it used casually would make one to believe it is an alright term.

 

[lexi]

Maybe you could PM me what you want to say and I give my input? I really don't want general courtesty and politeness to have to be enforced down the barrel of a gun. I think it's better if you express your opinion and a frank discussion can occur as a result of it.

Just, you know, if you go all Dark Octave, you can probably expect a ban. That's an example of going too far.

 

[Gaborn]

I myself didn't know that was a red flag but I often hear a lot of gay and lesbians use the term. Hearing it used casually would make one to believe it is an alright term.

Honestly I've NEVER heard it used casually by gay people. It's just not a term that is ever used positively by the gay community.

 

[george_us]

Of course not. Now if the relationship starts going deeper then I'd say yes, but right off the bat though? No.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

Maybe you could PM me what you want to say and I give my input? I really don't want general courtesty and politeness to have to be enforced down the barrel of a gun. I think it's better if you express your opinion and a frank discussion can occur as a result of it.

Just, you know, if you go all Dark Octave, you can probably expect a ban. That's an example of going too far.

Will PM you my thoughts.

Honestly I've NEVER heard it used casually by gay people. It's just not a term that is ever used positively by the gay community.

I work with three gay guys and two lesbians and here is what one of them said on Friday during a discussion, "I hate that people think that our lifestyle is just something that we are going thru and we will change once we get over that stage". The other two gay guys just went in agreement with him.

 

[Mumei]

No. It wouldn't be inflammatory.

I just think think even if you put your response in a sensible manner you would still get banned. I know someone got banned from here posting in a thread regarding gays for saying, that everyone is entitled to their own life and do as they seem fit but personally he doesn't believe in the lifestyle and that was despite saying he had friends who are gay. And just like that he was banned.

That's pretty remarkable, if true.

I've seen posters actively defend using faggot as a slur and denying that its basis as an insult has anything to do with bigotry towards gay men in particular and not get banned. Though as has already been stated, the lifestyle comment is a red flag, and I suppose I could see a junior being banned more easily.

 

[Gaborn]

Will PM you my thoughts.



I work with three gay guys and two lesbians and here is what one of them said on Friday during a discussion, "I hate that people think that our lifestyle is just something that we are going thru and we will change once we get over that stage". The other two gay guys just went in agreement with him.

Just curious, was one of them the person you had this incident with?:

I'm not gay but I was in a situation like that. I was at work and during lunch I was talking to a friend on the phone and I said to him "Yeah he is a batty boi", just as one of the directors was coming around he heard me say batty boi. I didn't pay it no mind but when I went back to work, I was called into a meeting. He wa sclaiming that I called him a batty boi and was making fun of him.

I said to him that I was on the phone with a friend of mine and my conversation with him had nothing to do with you and that maybe you shouldn't have been listening in on my conversation. I said the comment was directed to you. Anyway there was a big argument over it and he tried to get me fired but the owner of the company said that there was no ground to fire me on because I didnt call him a batty boi and I wasn't making fun of him.

Also, did you ever tell them your view that:

There are no scientifically proven facts that people are born gay.

? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but now I really am less inclined.

 

[Daimaou]

"Obligated?" No, no one is obligated to share any information about themselves unless it poses a threat to the health of the other person. (AIDS, for example) Everyone has a right to privacy, and should not be forced to reveal any information they are not comfortable revealing.

That said, however, not telling the other person before things get overly physical is inconsiderate, and increases the likelihood of a blow up if the other party finds out through some other means later. People tend to be more accepting if you're more forward about things. ("More accepting" being relative to the person's own reactions)

 

[Phoenix Fang]

Just curious, was one of them the person you had this incident with?:

No he wasn't one of them. He "resigned" but we all know he got fired for calling a black girl at work a "stupid bitch n***a". No one ever really liked the guy because he was always trying to get someone in trouble if he didn't like you.

Also, did you ever tell them your view that:

? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but now I really am less inclined.

I must admit I was ignorant back then but being educated on the subject by my colleagues my views have changed on the subject.

 

[Gaborn]

No he wasn't one of them. He "resigned" but we all know he got fired for calling a black girl at work a "stupid bitch n***a". No one ever really liked the guy because he was always trying to get someone in trouble if he didn't like you.




I must admit I was ignorant back then but being educated on the subject by my colleagues my views have changed on the subject.

I see. Well then, consider this another opportunity for education. "lifestyle" is essentially exclusively a negative term within the gay community. I have no doubt the possibility of some parts of the world (judging from "batty boi" you might be Jamaican?) that might be particularly homophobic culturally that term would be adopted by the local gay community simply because it's so commonly used, but generally? Avoid it.

 

[Milchjon]

Ok, I'm honestly confused about the bans in this thread. I haven't read every page, but skimming through it's hard for me to see a huge difference between what those guys said and what others wrote?

In my 7 years on GAF, I've always thought I had at least some sense of what would get you banned. But in the last few months the banning policy has become more and more confusing.

 

[Dead Man]

Ok, I'm honestly confused about the bans in this thread. I haven't read every page, but skimming through it's hard for me to see a huge difference between what those guys said and what others wrote?

In my 7 years on GAF, I've always thought I had at least some sense of what would get you banned. But in the last few months the banning policy has become more and more confusing.

A couple of them are from incidents not in this thread.

 

[Gaborn]

Ok, I'm honestly confused about the bans in this thread. I haven't read every page, but skimming through it's hard for me to see a huge difference between what those guys said and what others wrote?

In my 7 years on GAF, I've always thought I had at least some sense of what would get you banned. But in the last few months the banning policy has become more and more confusing.

Well, keep in mind some of the bans may not be related to the thread. For example apparently Garbaga may have been banned in the Apple thread. This thread has survived several days now so people probably got banned for a variety of different reasons.

 

[Suairyu]

This is the first time I have sat one of these threads out.

I still felt like I expended energy reading it.

Still, at least I discovered the Genderbreadman image today. Will be useful shorthand, even if I feel it a touch simplistic.

 

[Simplet]

Also, did you ever tell them your view that[/URL]:

"There are no scientifically proven facts that people are born gay."

? I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but now I really am less inclined.

It's only vaguely related to this thread by why are you still peddling that misinformation about homosexuality being "genetical" Gaborn? I'm sure you've already had this conversation in several threads and you've surely seen something of those great links Lexi posted in this thread, so why are you attacking posters posting plain facts? Why didn't you rather quote his post claiming that homosexuality not being a choice is hard to believe for example?

I don't understand this idea of fighting ignorance with ignorance. Politically correct ignorance isn't more worthy of being spread around just because it's politically correct.

 

[Gaborn]

It's only vaguely related to this thread by why are you still peddling that misinformation about homosexuality being "genetical" Gaborn? I'm sure you've already had this conversation in several threads and you've surely seen something of those great links Lexi posted in this thread, so why are you attacking posters posting plain facts? Why didn't you quote his post claiming that homosexuality not being a choice is hard to believe for example?

I don't understand this idea of fighting ignorance with ignorance. Politically correct ignorance isn't more worthy of being spread around just because it's politically correct.

are... you joking?

 

[Dead Man]

It's only vaguely related to this thread by why are you still peddling that misinformation about homosexuality being "genetical" Gaborn? I'm sure you've already had this conversation in several threads and you've surely seen something of those great links Lexi posted in this thread, so why are you attacking posters posting plain facts? Why didn't you quote his post claiming that homosexuality not being a choice is hard to believe for example?

I don't understand this idea of fighting ignorance with ignorance. Politically correct ignorance isn't more worthy of being spread around just because it's politically correct.

What? Being born gay does not mean it has to be genetic.

 

[Gaborn]

What? Being born gay does not mean it has to be genetic.

Although there is strong evidence of a genetic component to sexuality.

 

[Dead Man]

Although there is strong evidence of a genetic component to sexuality.

Yes, of course. I just think too many people get caught up on demanding one discrete gene when it will be a massive iteration between hundreds of factors, some genetic, some hormonal, and hell, probably even some environmental. But if they don't see that 'gay gene'... IT'S A CHOICE!

 

[Mumei]

It's only vaguely related to this thread by why are you still peddling that misinformation about homosexuality being "genetical" Gaborn? I'm sure you've already had this conversation in several threads and you've surely seen something of those great links Lexi posted in this thread, so why are you attacking posters posting plain facts? Why didn't you rather quote his post claiming that homosexuality not being a choice is hard to believe for example?

I don't understand this idea of fighting ignorance with ignorance. Politically correct ignorance isn't more worthy of being spread around just because it's politically correct.

 

[Dead Man]

So eloquent. Perfect

 

[Gaborn]

Yes, of course. I just think too many people get caught up on demanding one discrete gene when it will be a massive iteration between hundreds of factors, some genetic, some hormonal, and hell, probably even some environmental. But if they don't see that 'gay gene'... IT'S A CHOICE!

Completely agree.

And yes, the GIF is purrfect.

 

[Grinchy]

Was I even born straight though? When I was born, I had no sexuality whatsoever, at least none that I can remember. At some point, I became attracted to females. I didn't choose this, it was completely natural. But I just don't know if we're anything when we're first born.

 

[Daimaou]

I've only ever seen evidence pointing to sexuality being inborn. However sexuality as I understand it isn't binary, most people are bisexual to some degree. This means that for some people it certainly could be a choice in which sex they wish to pursue.

 

[Gaborn]

I've only ever seen evidence pointing to sexuality being inborn. However sexuality as I understand it isn't binary, most people are bisexual to some degree. This means that for some people it certainly could be a choice in which sex they wish to pursue.

I don't think that's what bisexual means. To simplify it, I've dated guys with black hair, brown hair, blond hair, etc. I'm probably slightly more attracted to blond hair but I don't "choose" not not be attracted to guys with other hair color, my attraction is individual. Bisexual then just means you feel attractions for both sexes you don't "choose" those attractions.

 

[Simplet]

And here we go for that old song and dance again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity_of_sexuality

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".[34] The APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[35] "[F]or some ["people"] the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span..."[36] A community may change over time.[37] In a joint statement with other major American medical, psychology, educator, and religious organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[38] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[39] "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."[40]

"[A number of] lesbian women, and some heterosexual women as well, perceive choice as an important element in their sexual orientations."[41]

The freaking Youtube videos for that Stanford behavioural biology guy are right there in the thread. How many times does the guy has to ridicule the idea that there is almost no chance whatsoever that such a broad and complicated behaviour trait like sexual orientation can be pinned down to a genetic component exclusively?

And what is going on once again with the stupid scare tactics and the gifs and the rhetorical questions? That's not a way to argue.

 

[Mumei]

And what is going on once again with the stupid scare tactics with the gifs and the rhetorical questions? That's not a way to argue.

Neither is lying about the position of the person you disagree with, but you're doing just fine.

 

[Dead Man]

I've only ever seen evidence pointing to sexuality being inborn. However sexuality as I understand it isn't binary, most people are bisexual to some degree. This means that for some people it certainly could be a choice in which sex they wish to pursue.

Certainly. Everyone as has a choice in HOW they express their sexuality, but you can't really control who you are attracted to. Same for straight people. See a beautiful girl, but she has a hulking boyfriend? Back off

Was I even born straight though? When I was born, I had no sexuality whatsoever, at least none that I can remember. At some point, I became attracted to females. I didn't choose this, it was completely natural. But I just don't know if we're anything when we're first born.

Yes, this is good. It may not exist when born but still not be choice. I suppose you might be able to argue further that even if it was set by the time we are born, it is not expressed until much later.

I don't think that's what bisexual means. To simplify it, I've dated guys with black hair, brown hair, blond hair, etc. I'm probably slightly more attracted to blond hair but I don't "choose" not not be attracted to guys with other hair color, my attraction is individual. Bisexual then just means you feel attractions for both sexes you don't "choose" those attractions.

Yeah, I like the hair analogy for bisexuality a lot. I always use it when I try and explain myself to people who ask those sorts of questions.

And here we go for that old song and dance again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity_of_sexuality



The freaking Youtube videos for that Stanford behavioural biology guy are right there in the thread. How many times does the guy has to ridicule the idea that there is almost no chance whatsoever that such a broad and complicated behaviour trait like sexual orientation can be pinned down to a genetic component exclusively?

And what is going on once again with the stupid scare tactics and the gifs and the rhetorical questions? That's not a way to argue.

Who is suggesting this?

 

[Daimaou]

I don't think that's what bisexual means. To simplify it, I've dated guys with black hair, brown hair, blond hair, etc. I'm probably slightly more attracted to blond hair but I don't "choose" not not be attracted to guys with other hair color, my attraction is individual. Bisexual then just means you feel attractions for both sexes you don't "choose" those attractions.

Using your example of hair color, if your attraction to those who were blonde and those who had brown hair were equal in that you were very attracted to both, couldn't you simply choose to only date those with blonde hair? I don't know, sexuality is a very complex topic that I'm no expert on.

 

[Simplet]

Neither is lying about the position of the person you disagree with, but you're doing just fine.

I know that "genetical" and "born gay" are not synonyms. Neither is true (at the very least neither has any "scientific facts" backing it, which was the position of the guy quoted in the first place), but Gaborn keeps blurring the distinction between the two himself (hence his post in this thread just after claiming that you're born gay that it has a "strong genetic component". How strong? I guess we'll never know.)

 

[Gaborn]

And here we go for that old song and dance again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity_of_sexuality



The freaking Youtube videos for that Stanford behavioural biology guy are right there in the thread. How many times does the guy has to ridicule the idea that there is almost no chance whatsoever that such a broad and complicated behaviour trait like sexual orientation can be pinned down to a genetic component exclusively?

And what is going on once again with the stupid scare tactics and the gifs and the rhetorical questions? That's not a way to argue.

No one is saying that sexuality is ONLY genetic. Something I'm always linking in these threads is the piece 60 Minutes did on the very issue of whether being gay is a choice or genetic or whatever. You can see Part 1 and Part 2.

Sexuality has a large hormonal component (exposure in the womb) but IS largely controlled by genetics. Not exclusively, but mostly.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

I'm not trying to open a can of worms, but I know that will happen anyway, so here goes.

When someone is sexually abused at a young age, it is well documented that they are more likely to become homosexual or sexually disturbed in some way.

Is that genetics or a choice? Discuss.