Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

If I found out that a woman I was dating used to be a prostitute it would kill the sexual attraction because I could never get it out of my head and I'd feel all icky if we had sex.

While it's OK to not date a former prostitute because it makes you feel 'icky', the reason you're feeling icky is probably a form of prejudice stemming from society's view regarding sex workers and promiscuous women. As such, I don't think you should be berated for feeling that way, but I would like to ask you to recognize that they stem from a twisted cultural element, which would ideally being the first step to changing the way you're likely to feel.

is this real life? Moral relativism holding the moral high ground? What about his feelings? Doesn't he have the right to feel icky without you oppressing him?

[Bauglir]

@Virex
I can agree that there probably is an element of that in, for instance, my reaction. I can also agree that it would be better for all concerned if I did not have that reaction. That said, since my sexual identity has already formed, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to say that that reaction is acceptable on my part, just as it's not hypocritical for somebody to be attracted to redheads because of whatever countless tiny influences happened to coalesce into that particular fetish, and I don't need to actually have a justification for it. It's enough for me to say, "This is so", and act accordingly - just as it should be enough for a woman to say, "I am a woman", and act accordingly. It's awful that the latter isn't always allowed to happen, I completely agree.

@Nilocy
Why is choice relevant? Imagine, if you would, a relationship that arises on the Internet and seems to blossom into romance. You meet, and you find that, in person, you don't find yourself attracted to your partner. Let's say the reasons why are beyond their choice - their voice grates on you, the shape of their face is unpleasant, whatever. It's enough that you can't seriously envision yourself being happy with this person, no matter how shallow you know your objection is. The point is, the impression you'd built up is wrong - should you continue the relationship? Maybe you shouldn't have made so many assumptions about the person you were talking to, but that's hardly relevant here - since to continue the relationship in spite of that would be to make that relationship a punishment, which is never a healthy or sane way to do things.

@Frumple
While the above scenario seems completely unrelated to whether or not somebody is attractive now based on past events, consider that their history (which we're allowed to have taste in) is, now and forever, affected by their past. If their history were impacting some other thing that I have a taste in, then that would be the thing I'd have to justify history affecting. But if, for whatever reason, I have a personal preference for a kind of personal history, then it doesn't matter what the present state of a person's being is. I care about who they were. Maybe that's unfair! But, really, that's kind of the nature of preferences. Maybe it's unreasonable! But that's kind of the nature of arbitrary things.

[GoombaGeek]

If I found out that a woman I was dating used to be a prostitute it would kill the sexual attraction because I could never get it out of my head and I'd feel all icky if we had sex.

While it's OK to not date a former prostitute because it makes you feel 'icky', the reason you're feeling icky is probably a form of prejudice stemming from society's view regarding sex workers and promiscuous women. As such, I don't think you should be berated for feeling that way, but I would like to ask you to recognize that they stem from a twisted cultural element, which would ideally being the first step to changing the way you're likely to feel.

is this real life? Moral relativism holding the moral high ground? What about his feelings? Doesn't he have the right to feel icky without you oppressing him?

Oh you stereotyping stereotyper! You just don't understand!! Why are you subconsciously oppressing us with your evil perceptions?!

[DJ]

If I found out that a woman I was dating used to be a prostitute it would kill the sexual attraction because I could never get it out of my head and I'd feel all icky if we had sex.

While it's OK to not date a former prostitute because it makes you feel 'icky', the reason you're feeling icky is probably a form of prejudice stemming from society's view regarding sex workers and promiscuous women. As such, I don't think you should be berated for feeling that way, but I would like to ask you to recognize that they stem from a twisted cultural element, which would ideally being the first step to changing the way you're likely to feel.

Oh, I get it, because I'm a member of the majority my irrational sexual preferences are a bad thing and I should be reformed, while the irrational sexual preferences of the minority are to be respected and accepted unquestionably.

[Bauglir]

We should probably keep the sarcasm to a minimum. We've already had two people leave because the discussion was getting too heated, and it's not helping. At least try to be funny about it, if you're trying to lighten the mood.

[Virex]

If I found out that a woman I was dating used to be a prostitute it would kill the sexual attraction because I could never get it out of my head and I'd feel all icky if we had sex.

While it's OK to not date a former prostitute because it makes you feel 'icky', the reason you're feeling icky is probably a form of prejudice stemming from society's view regarding sex workers and promiscuous women. As such, I don't think you should be berated for feeling that way, but I would like to ask you to recognize that they stem from a twisted cultural element, which would ideally being the first step to changing the way you're likely to feel.

is this real life? Moral relativism holding the moral high ground? What about his feelings? Doesn't he have the right to feel icky without you oppressing him?

You, what? Erm? How do you even...? I mean, I'm merely asking him to do some soul searching and to try and understand where his feelings are coming from. I don't have any power over him, nor am I reinforcing or leveraging any stereotypes. Frankly, the idea that a simple request to analyze his feelings would be oppression is preposterous.

@Virex
I can agree that there probably is an element of that in, for instance, my reaction. I can also agree that it would be better for all concerned if I did not have that reaction. That said, since my sexual identity has already formed, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to say that that reaction is acceptable on my part, just as it's not hypocritical for somebody to be attracted to redheads because of whatever countless tiny influences happened to coalesce into that particular fetish, and I don't need to actually have a justification for it. It's enough for me to say, "This is so", and act accordingly - just as it should be enough for a woman to say, "I am a woman", and act accordingly. It's awful that the latter isn't always allowed to happen, I completely agree.

If you recognize that the current situation is not ideal, why stick to your guns? It's not that I think it's hypocritical, just stubborn. It's like you recognize that feeling uncomfortable around people of color is racism, yet you make no effort to get more comfortable. It's one thing to have those feelings, but it's another thing to realize they're problematic and still make no effort to improve yourself. Of course, I can't force, nor expect you to do anything and you may have already attempted to change, in which case, feel free to ignore my request.

If I found out that a woman I was dating used to be a prostitute it would kill the sexual attraction because I could never get it out of my head and I'd feel all icky if we had sex.

While it's OK to not date a former prostitute because it makes you feel 'icky', the reason you're feeling icky is probably a form of prejudice stemming from society's view regarding sex workers and promiscuous women. As such, I don't think you should be berated for feeling that way, but I would like to ask you to recognize that they stem from a twisted cultural element, which would ideally being the first step to changing the way you're likely to feel.

Oh, I get it, because I'm a member of the majority my irrational sexual preferences are a bad thing and I should be reformed, while the irrational sexual preferences of the minority are to be respected and accepted unquestionably.

Put an idea in a vacuum and all sense gets sucked out .


I don't know what you're referring to when speaking about the irrational sexual preferences of the minority, but certainly not all sexualities are to be respected.
[trigger warning]
For example, pedophilia is a minority sexuality, and a good case could be make for saying that pedophiles are not neurotypical, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't change.
[/trigger warning].
 Now, what separates sexual preferences that are OK from those that aren't are power and prejudice. If a sexual preference is a result from a wider problematic stereotype, then of course it's an expression of racism/sexism/cissexism/religious oppression/et cetera. Now, it may not be the biggest problem, but as long as people don't realize where their preferences are coming from, they can't make an effort to improve society and I assume that we'd all like for people to at least pitch in a little bit for a brighter future.


To take an example, if someone prefers their partner to like fish, then that's not a problem since people that do not like fish are not disadvantaged in society. On the other hand, a woman refusing to date short guys start getting problematic, since there is some latent discrimination against short people. Refusing to date a black person gets even more problematic, with racism coming into the picture.


Now I realize there are some fundamental types that would fall under this guideline yet are not problematic. Heterosexuality is the best example. But I never claimed that one has to dismiss a preference outright. If a person does some soul-searching and realizes their preference for other-gendered partners is innate, then that's it. But I'd prefer that people actually do that instead of claiming "I'm not attracted to trans* people" without understanding the nature of their dispreference and if it would be possible and desirable to change it.

[DJ]

If you're going to be consistent you should go and question *all* of your preferences (do you dislike sushi because you're biased against the Japanese culture? hmm, come to think of it, all ethnic restaurants are kinda racist...), in which case I hope you have a nice mental breakdown.

[GoombaGeek]

Why am I in school anyway? I'm probably biased against the unemployed.

[Bauglir]

If you recognize that the current situation is not ideal, why stick to your guns? It's not that I think it's hypocritical, just stubborn. It's like you recognize that feeling uncomfortable around people of color is racism, yet you make no effort to get more comfortable. It's one thing to have those feelings, but it's another thing to realize they're problematic and still make no effort to improve yourself. Of course, I can't force, nor expect you to do anything and you may have already attempted to change, in which case, feel free to ignore my request.

What guns? Do I decide who I'm attracted to? Does a trans woman decide that, since it isn't ideal to experience such a dissonance with the assumptions of those around her, she ought to get more comfortable with being a man?

[Virex]

If you recognize that the current situation is not ideal, why stick to your guns? It's not that I think it's hypocritical, just stubborn. It's like you recognize that feeling uncomfortable around people of color is racism, yet you make no effort to get more comfortable. It's one thing to have those feelings, but it's another thing to realize they're problematic and still make no effort to improve yourself. Of course, I can't force, nor expect you to do anything and you may have already attempted to change, in which case, feel free to ignore my request.

What guns? Do I decide who I'm attracted to?

Erm, yes? It would be rather problematic if I were to have to decide for everyone who to like or not to like . You're free to decide for yourself who you'll like, all I ask for is to realize that whatever you decide may not be ideal. I, and others with me, may agree or disagree with your choice, but all I can and will do is chip in a polite request.

Why am I in school anyway? I'm probably biased against the unemployed.

If you are and you don't want to be, change it . You can't be perfectly balanced and understanding of everyone at all the time, and there's a need to take care of yourself, but if you decide to not do anything, well, expect people to disapprove of that.

If you're going to be consistent you should go and question *all* of your preferences (do you dislike sushi because you're biased against the Japanese culture? hmm, come to think of it, all ethnic restaurants are kinda racist...), in which case I hope you have a nice mental breakdown.

That's why you focus on the things that have a large impact. Doing something beats doing nothing. I'm sure we could have a lengthy discussion about the relative merit of different ethnic restaurant chains and their impact on society, but in the end, things like employing people, befriending people, or engaging in a relationship with someone are the kind of things that really make a difference in people's lives.

[Glowcat]

I once talked to a girl who through conversation revealed that she had a fantasy of me to get her pregnant with a girl, and then raise this child, and when it turned 4 have me have sex with the child in front of her.

I was attracted to her before this information, afterward there was no way I would have sex with her. I couldn't get the image of her standing outside a circle lit with candles while an infant child was sacrificed out of my head. It doesn't matter that she'd never do that, or that this sacrifice scene wasn't even a real representation of her fantasy, it was too late.

This conflation still seems to be floating around so let me clear it up... There's a huge difference between a preference on who you'll enter a romantic relationship with because of factors outside of natural orientation and

I wouldn't because I am not into men (Edit: Physical sense) who were altered to appear as women (Edit: Physical sense). I am into women (Edit: Both senses.). I have nothing against transsexuals, but I could be no more interested in a MtF than I could be interested in a M. My orientation extends to this quality.

As per the example I brought up with the case where this stated preference would still exist if a cis woman declared herself falsely to be trans (in a believable manner), it sorta proves that this stated "natural orientation" is based on something else entirely. It reads as being based on classic prejudice against trans people.

------------------------------------

Since nobody else decided to jump on it and move the conversation back towards the original topic, I'm going to explicitly attempt to move the discussion towards a topic I touched upon in that derail. What are, in your eyes, the essential physical qualities which make a woman a woman and a man a man? Does this standard apply universally or are there certain cis females who would be excluded by your standards, and would you still hold them despite rationally acknowledging that the universal statement about physical womanhood doesn't apply? How would you apply this standard to naturally intersex people?

[bombzero]

Hey guys, bigotry is a two-way street. Typically with the actual bigots and the "Anti-bigots", the ones who take the opposite extreme.

The black man who expects government loans for being black is as much a bigot as the white man who believes black people should leave America.
The gay man who thinks straight people are evil is just as much a bigot as the straight man who hates gays.
The "feminists" who think Women are the betters of society are just as much of bigots as the "masculinists" who believe men are superior.

Affirmative action programs are bigoted laws.
NAACP is a bigoted organization, if they were also violent towards whites they would be as bad as the KKK.
The fact that businesses want people to learn Spanish in a predominantly English speaking community just to cater to a few, likely illegal, immigrants from Mexico is just as bigoted as the guy who thinks the immigrants should be forced to learn English.


In fact, "bigotry" is any preconceived hatred or dislike, or feeling of superiority over, a group for a characteristic, usually one out of their control. Meaning the ones who feel it is wrong to not like a trans-women after learning of it, is no better then the one who thinks it's wrong to like them at all.
However, "anti-bigotry" is almost always excused under explanations that are clearly irritating to anyone under the so called "majority" group.

MetalSlimeHunt was towards the center of the "scales", he wasn't acting like a bigot, and he had nothing against transgendered people themselves but simply the fact that he didn't want to be in a physical or romantic relationship with one as it made him uncomfortable. He is simply one of the "majority".
In fact, those who argued against him presented behavior much closer to the "anti-bigot", an equal evil, by thinking him wrong for not being attracted to someone based on their physical history he was previously unaware of.

Since nobody else decided to jump on it and move the conversation back towards the original topic, I'm going to explicitly attempt to move the discussion towards a topic I touched upon in that derail. What are, in your eyes, the essential physical qualities which make a woman a woman and a man a man? Does this standard apply universally or are there certain cis females who would be excluded by your standards, and would you still hold them despite rationally acknowledging that the universal statement about physical womanhood doesn't apply? How would you apply this standard to naturally intersex people?

I'd say genetic code was the largest determination there for me. I really don't care about what you guys think of that but as a scientifically-minded individual I cannot logically consider a trans-gendered individual as being their "new" sex. I won't discriminate against them for their choice but they just aren't a different gender because they had some bits changed.

[Glowcat]

Since I'm not going to touch your classic example of bigot redirection complete with willful blindness of white privilege against them uppity people who want a degree of social justice after centuries of inequality created in an unjust system... I'll just focus on the part of your post which might lead to something productive.

The claim that your position of chromosomal is scientifically oriented. I'm going to draw on Natalie again but, are you sure?

Anyone whose gone beyond 101 Biology knows that the ultimate expression of a person's/creature's phenotype does not entirely, or even primarily rest on the DNA itself but rather the effects it typically has on the body via proteins, hormones, etc. In the case of sexual dimorphism the ultimate differences between either sex are largely due to hormones and other factors. The "clear-cut" issue of genetics also runs into issues with species who can and do cross sexual characteristics naturally.

EDIT: And since I forgot to bring it up again... What does a person's genetic make-up have to do if your goal isn't baby making? Do you really get off on that double XX chromosome?

[Bauglir]

@Virex
I'll try to be clearer. Do I decide? Not "Do I decide?", which is what you answered.

@GlowCat
I agree, "natural orientation" has nothing to do with the actual person, and everything to do with your perception. It's the same for every type of attraction - the best you can do is realize that your perception is not the authority on who it is right for that person to be. I can't argue, for instance, that the woman who transitioned from being a man is wrong for having done so on the basis that I didn't expect it. I'm of the belief that sexual preference is based on factors as deeply complicated as gender identity, which is why I don't think that there's good cause for insisting that some are wrong because they can't be justified, or because they don't result in attraction to a given individual.

-------------
For me, the greatest physical quality is anatomy. But the identity of man or woman is a wider concept than that, and for some individuals anatomy may or may not be the most important factor. The most important quality of any kind is the one that the person in question values most highly in answering the question about his or her own gender, including an ineffable gut feeling.

@bombzero
I think you might be taking "scientifically minded" a bit too far. If we're talking biologically, we can either discuss genetics or the reproductive functions served (which extent to raising children, incidentally), but that's not the only context in which people have a gender identity. A blanket statement that you can't consider them members of the gender associated with their new sex is going beyond science's current ability to answer the question, since (to my knowledge) a scientific study that provides an objective definition of gender identity is not yet published and is probably impossible. Also, what glowcat said.

[bombzero]

-snip-

Yeah, I'm making examples relavent to me since I live in the Southern United States, where such things are common issues.
See, I don't like bigotry, and by connection I don't like "anti-bigots" which take the opposite extreme, but always manage to justify their claims with "But we're a minority!" or "You just hate us because X!" nothing else to it.

@bombzero
I think you might be taking "scientifically minded" a bit too far. If we're talking biologically, we can either discuss genetics or the reproductive functions served (which extent to raising children, incidentally), but that's not the only context in which people have a gender identity. A blanket statement that you can't consider them members of the gender associated with their new sex is going beyond science's current ability to answer the question, since (to my knowledge) a scientific study that provides an objective definition of gender identity is not yet published and is probably impossible. Also, what glowcat said.

Actually what I mean is I don't consider them objectively "female" or "male" as they are not what they were born as. In fact I think "female" and "male" do not go much beyond your physical gender as inscribed in your genes.

Now, how masculine, feminine, outward-physically male or female, or whatever else they are? That can all be changed, but it doesn't make them 100% that gender barring a full-scale genetic, surgical, and chemical refactoring of the human body.

Perhaps it would make more sense if you read my earlier post where I stated I didn't care about physical gender from a romantic or sexual perspective, but only about the person themselves and their personality? I classify "male and female" by such direct terms because I do not have any other self-relevant terms to classify them by. It does not mean I think trans-genders, homosexuals who act like the opposite sex, or any of those people are objectively "wrong" somehow, just that they are not the opposite sex because of those changes.
I understand the whole issues with hormones, physical composition, and all of that but it just doesn't matter to me from a personal perspective. or how I classify them.

"Seek not evil in your fellow man's calm words, and none you shall find" -My intermediate school English teacher sometime around 2007... I think...