evilthecat said:
Which doesn't make them inappropriate in particular contexts.
Unless you just time travelled from the 18th century, it should be fairly obvious that varying degrees of public display around heterosexuality are commonplace in our society.
Not alleging anything here, but it's also amazingly convenient how much the thought of two guys kissing suddenly turns people into puritans.
sounds a bit like youve a persecution complex there mate
evilthecat said:
I also don't really appreciate the reference to AIDS. I'm sure you're just fag baiting to get a reaction, but you aren't helping your case by doing so.
See my previous comment about a persecution complex- Im a trained biologist and the metaphor seemed apt; the AIDs virus mutates at a staggering rate, it wasnt intended as any form of insult.
evilthecat said:
I feel pretty entitled to say that this is wrong.
Describe to me the tenets which hold true across cultures. Define how revulsion of particular traits is biologically conditioned. Because I can guarantee that other people will have said different things. Essential definitions of masculinity fail because the choice of essence is arbitrary. Anything you could come out here will tell me far more about you than it ever will about masculinity as a whole.
And are you basically saying that because much of society is taught to react aggressively towards effeminate behaviour in men that that in itself is self-justifying. Because I don't see the logic. The fact that such things are 'taught' implies the possibility that they might not be taught, surely?
Whilst I have no subjective or empirical data to back up my claim, from a casual standpoint human societies generally expect men to be physically strong and mentally hardy- when something is that ubiquitous a relatively safe assumption would be in there being a genetic component, either directly or indirectly.
But ultimately your whole line of arguement is charateristic of the very point I was trying to communicate- the homosexual community flat out demands the acceptance of society whilst blatantly flouting its mores, there are people in this thread who have flat out stated their objection to homosexuality, whilst I all I did was state a minor subjective caveat to what was predominantly a positive post, which you then tore into with vehemence, attempting to decry me as a member of that objectionable brood.
I honestly do not get why you seem so intent on tearing apart an inconsequential instinctive reaction- do you really think your high handed indignation will somehow alter it?