Fetish being your sexuality?

[KiloFox]

snip because it's irrelivent

i'm a furry myself, and i just wanna clear something up, furry CAN be a fetish, i will gladly admit that. but it PRIMARILY isn't. those with the "fetish" (it really should be called "kink") are referred to in-community as "Furverts"

OT: like i stated above i am a furry, but i also am kinda a furvert. hell i even own a canine-modeled Zeta toy

Now this is interesting. You're saying that being a furry isn't a fetish, and that it actually is/can be a sexuality. As sexuality has been outlined to me in the most forward-thinking way, a person can exist anywhere on a spectrum between totally gay and totally straight (not some binary gay/straight scale). So then, where and how would you plot furries on a graph of sexualities? What other sexualities exist out there? I feel like this is the kind of thing this thread should have been talking about instead of semantics like what the word normal means, and how offensive someone could take it.

i think you're misunderstanding what i said.

i never said it was a sexuality, nor did i mean to imply that. it's really more of a lifestyle or a hobby (depending on who you ask) and the sexual side of it is a kink/fetish. we still have normal sexualities (Gay/Striaght/Bi/Asexual/Pansexual)
as a tangent that's really still on the same vein however, some furs are a little strange that they're straight/gay/asexual when it comes to RL people, but have a different sexuality when it comes to anthros. but don't ask me to explain it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes, over the top, I know, but he and another poster are trying to compare the word "normal" to the caustic effects of the N word. I'm sorry, but "normal" doesn't have 300 years of hatred and bigotry behind it.

"Normal" actually has quite a lot of hatred and bigotry behind it when used in certain contexts.

Really though, evoking censorship was stupid, much in the same way evoking freedom of speech is so often stupid. But you seem to be cognizant of that, so I'm not really going to launch into a long explanation as to why.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

As far as I'm concerned, you're trying to control us by saying you're upset.

... and your point being?

Are you saying that people not being able to use the n-word is censorship? Cause this is the same issue.

If you really think that, then I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Another good point to make. It's harder to find someone who is mirrored to you in interests that go against the norm, so to speak. But again, I counter with this: websites! Yes, there are websites for a lot of fetishes. I can't say if they will have ones for your particular liking, but that is where I would start. :3

Oh I'm well aware of websites that fit what I'm into. I became a member of a few a long time ago, message boards and all.

It'll just be a matter of finding a match that is relatively close by and is in my age range.

I know it isn't exactly true, but having just turned 27 last month, I feel like time is flying by and I feel stupidly old(even though I shouldn't).

Though, I feel that things will most likely get better when I finally get a job. With the way things have went since I graduated from college, it just feels more and more like college was a waste of time, at least in the hours of time wasted in classes that aren't getting used now and the 40,000 dollars in loans I'm in debt for.

Hopefully my meeting with my city's work rehabilitative office next week will show some promise of finding a position somewhere that I can get an edge to get into. It won't be a grand job, but money is money.

 

[Signa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

As far as I'm concerned, you're trying to control us by saying you're upset.

... and your point being?

Are you saying that people not being able to use the n-word is censorship? Cause this is the same issue.

If you really think that, then I have nothing more to say to you.

My point being is that no one should listen to you, because I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives. Your feelings are not my concern, and they are no one's concern but your own. If you want to stamp out intolerance, start with those that actually are being hateful towards others, not people that accidentally use a benign phrase that could mean two different things when they only meant one of them.

Yet again on the next line, you're reading into it wrong [footnote]I'll forgive you fully for this one, because it isn't the same giant leap of logic you're using with "normal"[/footnote]. People avoid using the N word because they are trying to not insult black people. If everyone in this thread magically saw the light you are trying to shed on us, we'd all be coming away from here trying to avoid using a basic word like normal when talking about hetero sex, so as not to insult gays. That's just fucking stupid, and I don't know how you can't see that.

You still have not responded to my last comment as to why I'm wrong about gay sex being -/+ weird, or the accusation that your only interest in here is to be called normal. I'm trying to open a dialogue with you, but it seems the only way to get you to respond is to say something stupid, as if you will only respond when you are convinced you can win this discussion. If you're not actually interested in this discussion, then just bow out, I won't think less of you, but the way you're acting tells me that you're not happy with the way the thread has gone, and with or without a valid argument, you won't let it go.

"Normal" actually has quite a lot of hatred and bigotry behind it when used in certain contexts.

Please name a few and show why they apply to this conversation in the context it was used. I'm not talking about contexts like the subversion of the word queer, and how it means not normal and gay. If Aba1 was talking about running all the queers out of the town, and somehow wording that statement to use the word normal (I can't be bothered to make that statement up for this theoretical scenario), then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'd be alongside Bara here trying to stamp out the intolerant bigots. That's why I invoked censorship. I agree with Bara that we should all be nice to each other, but the level he's talking about is totalitarian. It's quelling the freedom to express one's self naturally, all for the sake of a few that could read into it deeper than what was intended. It's all part of the new-wave PC agenda that I absolutely abhor, and I... *ahem*... won't stand for it on my escapist.

[footnote]almost fell into a double-meaning trap myself here. I posted the pic because the troll's smile was exactly the tongue-in-cheek snark I wanted for that last line, but then I realized someone could take it to mean that I'm literally trolling, which is not the case. I'm interested in clarity, not political correctness[/footnote]

i think you're misunderstanding what i said.

i never said it was a sexuality, nor did i mean to imply that. it's really more of a lifestyle or a hobby (depending on who you ask) and the sexual side of it is a kink/fetish. we still have normal sexualities (Gay/Striaght/Bi/Asexual/Pansexual)
as a tangent that's really still on the same vein however, some furs are a little strange that they're straight/gay/asexual when it comes to RL people, but have a different sexuality when it comes to anthros. but don't ask me to explain it.

Ok, phew. I was trying to wrap my head around that and it wasn't working very well. Since I feel our exchange has been the most on-topic, let me ask you this: how would one differentiate between a sexuality and a fetish? Calling gays people with a "man fetish" sounds really stupid, but I'm struggling to see how that doesn't actually fit my understanding of a fetish. [footnote]A fetish being something that sexually arouses you, occasionally to the point where lacking that fetish makes it difficult to be interested in normal sex[/footnote]. Calling furries a sexuality sounds stupid, but I can't see the difference between being aroused by human men or animal-people.

 

[Owen Robertson]

There are a great deal of people whose fetish is just about the entirety of their sexuality. I think you could argue that being gay could be considered a fetish. I don't think most people care to think of it that way but it is essentially.

Um, no.

Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

It's not that "essentially" at all. You can have a foot fetish, or a shoe fetish, or a uniform fetish, or a food fetish, or a leather fetish.

You can't have a "man fetish".

Doesn't Freud say that sexuality is a combination of availability and preference? So there is no "natural" sexual attraction. A lot of people are sexually repressed because of societal view (at least in North America. Goddamn Puritan settlers) and peer pressure. Imagine admitting to your sexual fetish in front of your peers. Most people on here have an anonymity. It's also a fairly consequence-free environment.

OT: I don't know anyone whose completely obsessive about their fetish, but I have a friend who won't have sex unless he loves the person he does it with. He's 20, and yes he's still a virgin.

Then again, so am I. At least he has a reason. I guess I'm just lazy or shit at talking to women... Why am I being this revealing right now?

 

[Owen Robertson]

Oh. You didn't. You seriously didn't. Please, for the love of god, tell me this isn't a serious post, that this is just some strange attempt at humor by equating someone finding something offensive and advising people on how to not be offensive to Censorship. Please tell me you aren't taking advice to make people look less like dick-whistles (something that is completely optional), and equating it to something that is forced onto people by more powerful others?
'Cause if you are serious, then... well... I'm gonna be in the corner, weeping over the fact that people have forgotten that Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to Say Anything and not be Seen as a Dick-whistle.

I dislike when people make the logic jump of Free Speech to consequence-free speech, because then I feel obligated to explain. You already have, in your own way, but I'd like to assist.

Don't shed another's blood unless you're prepared to shed your own, OR, don't talk if you don't want to hear something back.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

My point being is that no one should listen to you, because I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives. Your feelings are not my concern, and they are no one's concern but your own.

Well, no, this person's feelings ARE my concern. As everyone's feelings are my concern. Not to the extent that it controls my life, but recognizing fellow human beings have emotions and showing empathy towards them is something you're meant to have learned by the age of five. It's part of being a social animal.

I honestly have no idea where this attitude you're expressing comes from, but I see it a lot, especially in video gaming communities populated largely by young men. I suspect it comes from a desire to appear "hard", or it could just be that people want to rationalize being assholes. Or maybe they read a story about a guy who had to suffer through some truly ridiculous PC nonsense as a child, and it left an impression on them, so now they think they're fighting the good fight by being willfully aggressive and pushing people's buttons. Trolling as a form of social activism. I could share what I think about that, but I'd probably get a lifetime supply of infractions.

It's one thing to argue that a word like normal has multiple definitions and multiple interpretations, that you meant no harm by it, and that people should hesitate before jumping to conclusions about intent. It's quite another thing to take this "Lololol no one should care about ur feelings mate" position.

Please name a few and show why they apply to this conversation in the context it was used.

Surely you appreciate what the implication of the word "normal" is, yes? And that the counterpart to that word is abnormal? And why anyone of any minority group...be it racial, sexual, or whatever you please...might be sensitive to the implication that they are abnormal? You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so pretending you're absolutely blinkered as to how a word like this can be used in a prejudicial fashion strikes me as profoundly disingenuous.

That's why I invoked censorship.

I'm not really assed about why you invoked censorship, it was a bankrupt analogue. You might as well just go straight for Godwin's Law if you care that little about making a functional analogy.

I agree with Bara that we should all be nice to each other, but the level he's talking about is totalitarian.

Actually, he is not exercising any control over your freedom, will, or thoughts. He's imploring you to think before you speak. At worst you could charge him with being over-sensitive, but to be honest the degree of sensitivity to slight one has is affected by a multitude of factors, many of which are ENTIRELY outside of that person's control, so whining about it is sort of pointless. If you find him too sensitive for your liking, you can just avoid him. If he starts following you around and actively prevents you from speaking somehow, then you can start using words like "totalitarian" without it provoking epic eye-rolls. Even then it's a bit of a stretch though, as the word was originally coined to mean oppression by the state, not nagging by an individual.

It's quelling the freedom to express one's self naturally, all for the sake of a few that could read into it deeper than what was intended.

No, it's not. Evidence being here you are, expressing yourself "naturally".

It's all part of the new-wave PC agenda...

Oh yes, that DREADFUL PC agenda that's sweeping the internet. Who will save us?

Doesn't Freud say that sexuality is a combination of availability and preference?

He might have. I was under the impression we stopped taking Freud seriously a long time ago though.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Doesn't Freud say that sexuality is a combination of availability and preference?

He might have. I was under the impression we stopped taking Freud seriously a long time ago though.

The majority of his work has been discredited, this is true, but that does not mean the above theory is completely without merit, does it?
Isaac Newton was a mathematical genius... and he also predicted the end of the world in 2060 via The Bible. Does that discredit his math?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The majority of his work has been discredited, this is true, but that does not mean the above theory is completely without merit, does it?

Isaac Newton was a mathematical genius... and he also predicted the end of the world in 2060 via The Bible. Does that discredit his math?

Well if you're a psychologist, and much if not all of your input on the field is discredited, it kind of casts whatever is left in a dim light. It doesn't mean I'll throw out his souffle recipe, but it does mean I'm going to be hesitant to jump on the bandwagon for any psychological theories he might espouse. I think that's fair.

A better analogy would be if Newton was terrible at math, and he also made some mathematical formulas, and does the fact he's terrible at math mean his math gets discredited. In which case I think the answer is obviously "yes".

In case you think I'm some kind of Freud hater, though, I will admit the man had an amazing beard.

 

[Owen Robertson]

A better analogy would be if Newton was terrible at math, and he also made some mathematical formulas, and does the fact he's terrible at math mean his math gets discredited. In which case I think the answer is obviously "yes".

In case you think I'm some kind of Freud hater, though, I will admit the man had an amazing beard.

...I liked it my way better. I thought I was right.

Seriously though, I suppose I was comparing apples and oranges. I've got to get better at this whole "debate" thing. Also you're right. He had a bitchin' beard.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

...I liked it my way better. I thought I was right.

Seriously though, I suppose I was comparing apples and oranges. I've got to get better at this whole "debate" thing. Also you're right. He had a bitchin' beard.

You actually might have something though. According to the trustworthiness of beards chart, we should believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/trustworthiness-of-beardsmusta.php

 

[Neksar]

I had a weird fetish where I could only get off with my girlfriend if she was actually enjoying the sex.

Okay, it's not technically a fetish, nor arguably a bad thing, but the latter part of that last statement is actually truthful.

 

[Signa]

My point being is that no one should listen to you, because I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives. Your feelings are not my concern, and they are no one's concern but your own.

Well, no, this person's feelings ARE my concern. As everyone's feelings are my concern. Not to the extent that it controls my life, but recognizing fellow human beings have emotions and showing empathy towards them is something you're meant to have learned by the age of five. It's part of being a social animal.

Bolded the important part. This is what I'm trying to say. I feel like when I'm scolded, or see others scolded for using inconsiderate language, it's trying to control that person's life. I certainly don't go around trying to hurt others' feelings, but that's why I get offended when others are offended. I didn't mean to hurt anyone, yet I'm some sort of bigoted, intolerant scum for not thinking about harmony for everyone. It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the **** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female. That kind of thing is actually moving society backwards, not forwards to utopian harmony.

I honestly have no idea where this attitude you're expressing comes from, but I see it a lot, especially in video gaming communities populated largely by young men. I suspect it comes from a desire to appear "hard", or it could just be that people want to rationalize being assholes. Or maybe they read a story about a guy who had to suffer through some truly ridiculous PC nonsense as a child, and it left an impression on them, so now they think they're fighting the good fight by being willfully aggressive and pushing people's buttons. Trolling as a form of social activism. I could share what I think about that, but I'd probably get a lifetime supply of infractions.

It's one thing to argue that a word like normal has multiple definitions and multiple interpretations, that you meant no harm by it, and that people should hesitate before jumping to conclusions about intent. It's quite another thing to take this "Lololol no one should care about ur feelings mate" position.

I'm hard because I'm trying to be realistic. I know no matter what I do, no matter how considerate I try to be, someone is going to take offense to something I said. To that, I've decided to say "fuck 'em." I've realized it's not my job to take care of others' feelings because it's just not possible. It's their job to learn how to not take offense to things. They are the ones that are unhappy, so it's their job to fix it, and not by telling others to stop living their lives. I don't know what has to happen in someone's life to consider holding a door a rude gesture, but it somehow has happened. I'm not going to protect those people by not holding doors for other people, and in the case of this thread, I'm not going to hold back my form of language if it means getting too verbose to say the exact same thing a normal word will suffice for.

Also, if you want to discuss this part privately, in a safe haven, feel free to PM me about your feelings[footnote]speaking of censorship...[/footnote].

Please name a few and show why they apply to this conversation in the context it was used.

Surely you appreciate what the implication of the word "normal" is, yes? And that the counterpart to that word is abnormal? And why anyone of any minority group...be it racial, sexual, or whatever you please...might be sensitive to the implication that they are abnormal? You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so pretending you're absolutely blinkered as to how a word like this can be used in a prejudicial fashion strikes me as profoundly disingenuous.

I can't help but feel this doesn't answer my question. We've already covered that no one thinks that being "abnormal" is a bad thing in this case. To even feel one has been called something they don't think is fair, you have to read the antonyms for the words that were used. I'm not callous enough to fail to understand why some will take issue with that, but those that do never bother to look at how language even works. What's another synonym for normal? Average? Basic? Neither of those properly describe the sex that was being discussed, and yet their antonyms still could be "abnormal." Basically, what I'm trying to say is taking the opposite of a word doesn't always mean it's the right word for the context. Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

That's why I invoked censorship.

I'm not really assed about why you invoked censorship, it was a bankrupt analogue. You might as well just go straight for Godwin's Law if you care that little about making a functional analogy.

So come up with one for me. What is it called when someone thinks you shouldn't be allowed to say something and then starts a movement to prohibit that speech? I know Bara isn't the head of that movement, but he is buying into its goals.

I agree with Bara that we should all be nice to each other, but the level he's talking about is totalitarian.

Actually, he is not exercising any control over your freedom, will, or thoughts. He's imploring you to think before you speak. At worst you could charge him with being over-sensitive, but to be honest the degree of sensitivity to slight one has is affected by a multitude of factors, many of which are ENTIRELY outside of that person's control, so whining about it is sort of pointless. If you find him too sensitive for your liking, you can just avoid him. If he starts following you around and actively prevents you from speaking somehow, then you can start using words like "totalitarian" without it provoking epic eye-rolls. Even then it's a bit of a stretch though, as the word was originally coined to mean oppression by the state, not nagging by an individual.

Yeah, so maybe it's hyperbole, but this is the internet, it doesn't get much more pointless and hyperbolic than this. It's not like he didn't engage in his own hyperbole by saying that aba1 was being offensive to all gays.

It's quelling the freedom to express one's self naturally, all for the sake of a few that could read into it deeper than what was intended.

No, it's not. Evidence being here you are, expressing yourself "naturally".

But if he had it his own way as master of the universe, I wouldn't be allowed to speak out. Censorship may have been hyperbolic, but it still was the form his wishes took. Just because I can speak now doesn't mean he wouldn't try to stop me if he could do something about it.

It's all part of the new-wave PC agenda...

Oh yes, that DREADFUL PC agenda that's sweeping the internet. Who will save us?

Why me of course! But seriously, I live in Seattle, and I get my fill of these sentiments just from the culture around me. No one will listen to me in real life, so at least I get a podium on the internet to voice my disdain and irritation.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the ****** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female.

Dude =(

I know no matter what I do, no matter how considerate I try to be, someone is going to take offense to something I said.

That's certainly possible, but someone taking offense to something you've said doesn't dramatically alter your life. You can validate someone's feelings, and alter your speech depending on the company you're in, without being a "victim of censorship". I have a lot of friends who, through varied life experiences, have developed certain sensitivities. I make a small effort to be sensitive to that in their company, to avoid causing them unnecessary distress. That kind of cultural/interpersonal sensitivity is NOT DIFFICULT to cultivate. I simply can't endorse an "I'm gonna say what I want to say when I want to say it and fuck em if they don't like it" perspective on life, because I don't know what we're meant to gain from it.

I don't know what has to happen in someone's life to consider holding a door a rude gesture, but it somehow has happened.

Well, I imagine centuries of having your gender treated like invalids might have something to do with it, but I'm not a woman so I can't claim to have any real insight. I'm not a big fan of ripping someone's head off for an attempted kind gesture either, but I've been around almost 40 years now and I've held thousands and thousands of doors open for thousands and thousands of people, and the worst reaction I ever got was indifference. I really don't think this is an epidemic.

Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

There is an ongoing battle for homosexuals, most particularly in your country, against the label of deviancy. If you paint people as abnormal or "other" it makes it much, much easier to demonize and attack them. This is fundamental to human psychology, we love to nominate a "deviant" group and project fears and insecurities onto them. In the case of homosexuals, their status as "abnormal" has has a hand in everything from being denied basic civil rights, to being dragged behind pickup trucks. Language has power. We can have a very dry academic discussion about how they are "deviant" insomuch as they are a minority population that deviates from the mean, but the word "deviant" has a very, very different connotation when you release it into the wilds. There's a lot of god fearin' folk out there who mean something dramatically different than you when they talk about how "normal" homosexuals aren't, and I'm pretty sympathetic towards their sensitivity on that issue.

What is it called when someone thinks you shouldn't be allowed to say something and then starts a movement to prohibit that speech? I know Bara isn't the head of that movement, but he is buying into its goals.

There's a world of difference between "shouldn't be allowed" and "shouldn't". You shouldn't cheat. You are allowed to cheat. You shouldn't eat food that is bad for you. You are allowed to eat food that is bad for you. You shouldn't say insensitive things that might inflame and/or promote bigotry. You are allowed to say insensitive things that might inflame or promote bigotry. World of difference. I also wouldn't characterize a complaint on a message board as a "movement". We're not fomenting any revolutions in here.

Yeah, so maybe it's hyperbole, but this is the internet, it doesn't get much more pointless and hyperbolic than this. It's not like he didn't engage in his own hyperbole by saying that aba1 was being offensive to all gays.

Hyperbolic statements don't cancel each other out. By meeting hyperbole with hyperbole you are encouraging attitude polarization, which means you deserve to be beaten with a trout. It's not like we don't have enough trouble with that on these forums already.

Why me of course! But seriously, I live in Seattle, and I get my fill of these sentiments just from the culture around me. No one will listen to me in real life, so at least I get a podium on the internet to voice my disdain and irritation.

And that's fine, but we can frame a "has the world become too politically correct" discussion without attacking someone for being uppity about their feelings, yeah? Surely you want to convince people of your perspective and convert followers to your cause, not create a bunch of enemies? Isn't that why people seek out podiums?

I know arguing on the internet can be terribly bracing...we all get to practice our wittiest turns of phrase on one another for an audience of 20 people, 19 of whom are only checking to see if someone has quoted them or looking for a controversial topic to flame...but at the end of the day it's about as productive as chasing a weasel around a mulberry bush, innit?

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm into being dominated. How much? Well, let me put it this way: I don't have a girlfriend anymore, and that's not due to any forgotten birthdays.

 

[Signa]

It's the same deal when I hear about stories of people politely holding doors for people at a store, and then getting lambasted by the ****** who thinks that kind gesture was to dis-empower her as a female.

Dude =(

sorry, but you're a **** if you get mad at someone for doing a harmless favor for them. Just as my roommate is a **** for getting mad at me for putting his laundry in the dryer for him because he was raiding in WoW. If there was actually some harm caused by either of those favors, then there's a right to be mad. Being so self absorbed in your own importance that no one is able to help you out makes you the worst kind of person. Those four letters express that in the most concise way possible. You know how I feel about them. I don't think you'd think much of Bara if he suddenly flipped shit at you for taking up his argument for him. **** may not be the word of choice for you, but it would be for me.

Connotations change from context to context, and "normal" has never been used offensively to my knowledge in history.

There is an ongoing battle for homosexuals, most particularly in your country, against the label of deviancy. If you paint people as abnormal or "other" it makes it much, much easier to demonize and attack them. This is fundamental to human psychology, we love to nominate a "deviant" group and project fears and insecurities onto them. In the case of homosexuals, their status as "abnormal" has has a hand in everything from being denied basic civil rights, to being dragged behind pickup trucks. Language has power. We can have a very dry academic discussion about how they are "deviant" insomuch as they are a minority population that deviates from the mean, but the word "deviant" has a very, very different connotation when you release it into the wilds. There's a lot of god fearin' folk out there who mean something dramatically different than you when they talk about how "normal" homosexuals aren't, and I'm pretty sympathetic towards their sensitivity on that issue.

Change religious folk to PC crowd, and you see my rage at this topic. People, no matter their beliefs, love to demonize one another. Sometimes it's God, sometimes it's being intolerant of intolerance. Both are trying for their vision of a happy society, and both are missing very important parts of the bigger picture: the human factor. Is my vision any better? Probably not, but it at least embraces the human factor and lets people be people, instead of hamfistedly trying to crush anyone who uses a stereotype, generalization, double entendre, or makes a funny expression at a time they disagree with [footnote]insert arguments about rape jokes[/footnote].

I need to wrap this up, but I had one point I wanted to work in somewhere that I never found the place. People love negativity in our language. Gay, fag, queer, retard, dumb, stupid are all words off the top of my head that have changed meaning significantly over the last 100 years or so. The first 3 are considered homophobic by the PC crowd, but people call their best friends those names to haze them. Southpark made an episode about fags, and how it really doesn't have anything to do with slurring gays anymore. The other 3 are words that used to refer to someone who the PC crowd now calls "specially able." As criminally insensitive as it could seem to call a handicapped person a retard, the fact is the word retard means slowed, and it was used on the handicapped at one point because dumb was getting subverted to mean something negative. My point in all this is that no matter what you do, words that are kind now will just get corrupted over time the more they get used. This isn't always for the worse, because neutering the impact of "fag" is certainly a win for gays. Putting "normal" in this vilified category is just a fool's errand.

 

[likalaruku]

This is like super sad, but hentai is a turn-on, but real porn bores the snot out of me. I guess it's because hentai is as unrealistic as possible: Super taboo, super unrealistic body proportions, dumber plot, stupider characters, shit that would be illegal in real life. It's a freak circus spectacle that grabs your attention span by the throat. As a woman, I should be heavily offended by this shit, they talk too much & the women have annoying voices & rock bottom IQs, but I feel compelled to watch it for a week every month. I'm pissed that I can't find any dominatrix hentai though' at least not any where the the woman is still a dominatrix at the end of the OAV.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I don't want to live in a world where we are all more concerned about hurting others' feelings than living our own lives.

This isn't about my feelings. It's about a perception within society that needs to end. I have educated a few people in this thread and hopefully changed a couple of minds. Those are a few small steps towards a better world.

I don't want you to be concerned about my feelings - I want you to realize that words have meaning and that certain perceptions of groups can harm that group.

Also, you seemed to be missing my point. There's nothing wrong with calling hetero sex normal - it's just that homosexual sex is also normal.

If something is abnormal, then people will try to fix it, or will not accommodate it. Not everyone, but if that is the social perception, then people can get away with it. This normal/abnormal view is why people think they can make gay marriage illegal when the right of gay people to get married is protected by the Constitution.

Finally, I said your post was irrelevant because I'm not censoring anything. First off, I'm not in charge of the Escapist. Secondly, even if I were, and even if I used the Ban Hammer, that still isn't censorship - the Escapist is a private website and has the rights to do whatever they want. They can Ban people for using whatever words they want (such as the T-Word).

What I am doing is asking people to consider their words and understand why these outdated perceptions are harmful.

Your feelings are not my concern,

That's interesting, when one of the Escapist Forum policies is "Be Considerate of Others". Be considerate, as in to be concerned about the feelings of others.

If you want to stamp out intolerance, start with those that actually are being hateful towards others, not people that accidentally use a benign phrase that could mean two different things when they only meant one of them.

Except that "benign" intolerance is the one kind that I can actually fix. If aba1 actually hated gay people, then all my yelling wouldn't result in anything. But he doesn't - he used a term carelessly because he didn't know any better. So I told him it was offensive, and I told him why, and several of my friends explained it further - and it worked, he understood the issue. We reasoned with him, and changed his mind - we showed him that his attitude was hurtful, even if he didn't mean it that way. And, because he's a good guy, he changed his behavior.

How is that not the most worthwhile way to end intolerance?

You still have not responded to my last comment as to why I'm wrong about gay sex being -/+ weird, or the accusation that your only interest in here is to be called normal.

Why didn't I explain why? I believe I pointed to another person's post and said "this - right here - what he said" because that person (sorry, can't remember his name - see page 2 of the thread) nailed it. He said what I was trying to, but better, and with quotes.

As for your 'accusation' - um, what? Yes, my 'only interest here' is for people to understand that being gay is normal. When have I said otherwise? When have I argued anything else?

Or... are you trying to imply that I - myself - want to be considered normal, rather than gay people in general? Because I have posted the exact opposite of that in this thread. I talked about ALSO being into BDSM, and that such a fetish makes me weird (in a good way).

I mentioned it when I was explaining that being weird or strange in general isn't a problem, but that considering all gay people to be "abnormal" (not weird, abnormal, as in mutated or faulty) is insulting. It's the generalization that's insulting - all gay people aren't anything, because you can't assume that all seven hundred million (or more) of us are the same worldwide.

If you're not actually interested in this discussion, then just bow out, I won't think less of you, but the way you're acting tells me that you're not happy with the way the thread has gone, and with or without a valid argument, you won't let it go.

Ah, but I am. Like I said, the conversation with aba1 went well - it took some time, but he got it, and I think we changed his mind with reason and appeal.

I'm not sure why you think this thread hasn't gone well for me. I got exactly what I wanted, and I'm happy. Aba1 is a cool guy, and now he understands why his comment could be seen - and was seen - as offensive by some.

I'm only replying because you seem to want to keep it going, and still seem to be missing some main points. Also because your comment that I was censoring people is absurd since I don't have anything like that kind of power, and I felt the need to call you on it - as did Shanicus I see, with that lovely Picard face-palm.

But yeah, we can stop anytime. I got my victory on page 2 of the thread. I'm good.

Edited for some typos. Long post is long.