Well, if the advance was rejected and she was in need of dark chocolate at the time...there might be some reaction from her
s.
(is that outside-the-box-off-topic enough?
)
Well, if the advance was rejected and she was in need of dark chocolate at the time...there might be some reaction from her
s.
(is that outside-the-box-off-topic enough?
)
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
And easily bought off, too, I might add.Can I join? I like the name.
I'm shallow, but very loyal.
s.
OK, here's some strong black coffee and almond croissants for you, Snoopy, and some dark chocolate covered almonds for me. (Not quite like popcorn, but it will suffice.)Well, if the advance was rejected and she was in need of dark chocolate at the time...there might be some reaction from her
s.
(is that outside-the-box-off-topic enough?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
More to the point, now that I've born my son and am raising him, how can I use my heterosexuality to serve society?
{Yes, that is a loaded question.}
Well if it's time for some dark chocolate covered almonds I think you should answer your own question and then we can all just agree. Y'know, just to save any unpleasant scenes.
What about heterosexuals that chose/choose not to have / can't have offspring? That includes me. (Loaded question #2.
)s.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
How about you and Snoopy do a demonstration?
See if Snoopy gets agro and starts throwing his fist around.
I find it weird for you to suggest that a man would get violent. I think he'd just be a little embarrassed (maybe a little flattered too). The worst thing you could get is rejection or the guy just walking out on you. The other option is for him to just give in and take advantage of the woman, or the other way round, for the woman to take advantage of the man (whichever way you see it
). To put it another way, the woman rapes the man.That actually makes me wonder about rape cases. This is perhaps one of those "gender wars" and "battle of the sexes" topics that rarely get resolved. It's one of those "who to blame" scenarios where you don't know whether to blame it on the man or the woman.
Let's say the woman makes advances on the man, he gives in, but later on, after it happened, the woman has regrets. After thinking for a while, it occurs to her that he took advantage of her. That's not unreasonable. She got aroused, got excited and lost control. But he was in control and he took advantage of her out-of-control state of mind. He charmed her so much she couldn't help herself. He messed with her mind and feelings.
But that, of course, is the woman's point of view, and the man's response will be "she offered herself to me!" Some will argue that the latter applies, while others will favour the woman's perspective, that "he took advantage of her."
To be honest, I've never thought of rape in those terms and I think I understand now that so-called "rape" doesn't necessarily involve the male initiative. A woman who is no longer fully exercising the faculties of her mind (possibly drunk or on drugs) may behave that way and perhaps a man should know better than to just give her what she requests.
Then there's pornography displaying the bodies, or parts of the bodies of women on television or on billboards, and the clothes that woman wear (which may carry sex appeal). In this case it isn't a woman being charmed and having her mind messed up by a man, but the other way round, a man having his mind messed up by a woman. A man's perspective may be that a woman shouldn't dress that way, that they are contributing to a culture where women are sex objects. The women are accused of taking advantage of a man's weakness. Yet, you could also argue that men asked for it. Men like seeing women that way.
I'm not here to argue either way who is right and wrong. Either way, you can't control the weaknesses men and women have and I don't think there's going to be an end to men and woman wanting the opposite sex to charm them in amazing ways and allow their minds to be messed up by the opposite sex. The moral of the story is, "the devil (the charming man/woman) made me do it!"
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Seattlegal + Snoopy + Saltmeister
Good Mourning people
Not necessarily, you are assuming that that sexual advances by women on men are always going to be welcome. I am linking some articles below which chronicle the rise of sexual harassment of men, by women. In my opinion, it does not really matter who is making the advance. What matters is, the openness of the person on whom the advance is being made. A man would be flattered of course, just as women are, even when they are not receptive to the advance (granted, as Netti Netti pointed out, the manner of the advance is courteous). However, repeated advances on men, who may be married, or committed, under some religious obligation, or just plain shy, can make the man feel just as awkward.
At the same time, it is also not right to assume that hetro men will be put off by homosexual advances. My friend's cousin was once hanging out with us and he told us how he was actually proud to be a "gay magnet". Apparently he appreciated the attention he received even from gay men, and obviously took it as a compliment. I am sure he isn't the only heterosexual man who feels this way either.
Sexual harassment of men revealed | UK news | The Observer
Male sexual harassment is not a joke - Careers
Man handling - sexual harassment of men | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
(one sec... gotta put on my flak jacket and helmet . . . ok good 2 go).Seattlegal said:
It would serve a function on an individual basis.
Now, other than procreation, specifically, how does heterosexuality functionally serve society?
More to the point, now that I've born my son and am raising him, how can I use my heterosexuality to serve society?
{Yes, that is a loaded question.}
----------------------------------
Snoopy said:
What about heterosexuals that chose/choose not to have / can't have offspring? That includes me. (Loaded question #2.
s.
Okay, firstly, for a discussion on functional uses of sexual preference, you can not say "Now, other than procreation, specifically, how does heterosexuality functionally serve society?" Because that is a pretty big functional advantage of heterosexuality that you are not allowing into the discussion. I mean, that would be like taking the 7 best players off the team and saying "well, now how good is your team?" ... well, obviously not that good because you benched most of it. (duh! lol)
Now secondly, the question: what about people who choose not to/can not have children. Well, I am one of those people who does not want to have kids. And I will admit that mine and snoopy's functional use to society is minimal, in that sense. *(sorry dude
)*. I mean, unless we both invent some newer, longer lasting light bulb or something, our functional worth to society is probably negligible. The whole point was to compare the functional uses of homosexuality vs heterosexuality. The only reason I suggested it for the proponents of homosexuality because it would be the easiest way to convince someone to change their attitude on something. Especially those who have personal biases and are unreasonably hostile to any idea or concept.
Now, admittedly, functionality is a very harsh way to look at things. This is why I prefer to see the world in a different way. But that way is based on my religious/spiritual ways, and in that way homosexuality is also disallowed. So I would not be able to change my views even if you find a functional use because I am working from a different paradigm altogether anyway. But like I said, I am not the one homosexuals have to worry about, as I would never want to deny them their rights anyway. I do see it as a fault, but there are many faults in many people including myself and I am more concerned about them.
@ Saltmeister
I second that motion !!! lolHow about you and Snoopy do a demonstration?
See if Snoopy gets agro and starts throwing his fist around.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Well then, first we would have to determineHow about you and Snoopy do a demonstration?
See if Snoopy gets agro and starts throwing his fist around.
- Whether Snoopy views women as sex objects
- Makes unwanted sexual advances towards women
- Complains about women getting upset over his unwanted sexual advances
Then, this what we'd have to do to proceed:
- I would then have to undergo a sex change operation to become a gay man. (I'm not really interested in doing that. The hormonal implications alone just give me a headache.)
- I would have to procure a passport reflecting my new gender and identity
- I would have to fly to the UK, track down Snoopy, and then make overt sexual advances towards him, viewing him only as a sex object. (Somehow, I just don't think I could pull that off.)
I don't think I can quite believe this discussion is happening!
Not normally I hope, but possibly could if requested.
s.
Not normally I hope, but possibly could if requested.
Not that I've noticed. As I'm in a happy relationship I don't make advances.
See above.
Nothing too difficult for me to do here then!
Hey, I could be upset at that!
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Just where did I write that?
Did you notice where I wrote might in regards to that? (Post #28)
Please also notice that this was in response to your saying this:
c0de said:
With that said, I will admit that I do see homosexuality as a deviance, because I am required to see it as such because of my religious values. But in this case, my views are much less complicated. Homosexuality seems to me to be completely non-functional for society. Even when I can see potential benefits in other unlawful activities prohibited by religion, this one... I just do not see any operative benefit whatsoever, for either the individual or civilization. You could argue a case for the acceptance of drugs as more utilitarian much more easily then for homosexuality. But that's just my opinion.
I was giving you a hypothetical example.
Well, how many times am I expected to have to face possible death by torture to bring a new life into this world in order to be considered as functionally serving society? (Let me give you a hint: I'm not a breeding machine!c0de said:
)How does reducing women down to the status of breeding machines serve to further the functioning of society?Now secondly, the question: what about people who choose not to/can not have children. Well, I am one of those people who does not want to have kids. And I will admit that mine and snoopy's functional use to society is minimal, in that sense. *(sorry dude
The whole point was to compare the functional uses of homosexuality vs heterosexuality.
I have an unreasonable bias to being reduced to the role of breeding machine! In fact, I am unreasonably hostile to that idea and concept!
{Let me clue you in: you aren't going to change any minds using this strategy.}
Yes, by definition, reducing people to the role of machines actually negates the idea and concept of society.
Then why did you even pose the argument in the first place?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Thank you! How well do you think they will work in a slingshot?Them loaded questions are a bugger.
Have some chocolate almonds, sg.
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
No hard feelings, c0de, but it being Halloween and all, I just couldn't resist lobbing candy at your strawman argument!Thank you! How well do you think they will work in a slingshot?
Thank you! How well do you think they will work in a slingshot?
Very well I should think. And if you suck the chocolate off first, even more painful
s.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
@ Seattlegal
yea... thanks. Blame Halloween why don't you, while I struggle to type,No hard feelings, c0de, but it being Halloween and all, I just couldn't resist lobbing candy at your strawman argument!
as I pick the chocolate shrapnel from my bones.
Oh no... No way.... I'm not getting near this one.Well, how many times am I expected to have to face possible death by torture to bring a new life into this world in order to be considered as functionally serving society? (Let me give you a hint: I'm not a breeding machine!
My spidey sense is goin crazy as it is.
yea... but technically according to that argument, men are also just like machines...How does reducing women down to the status of breeding machines serve to further the functioning of society?
does that help? Err... maybe I should just shut up ....
... ye have little faith.I have an unreasonable bias to being reduced to the role of breeding machine! In fact, I am unreasonably hostile to that idea and concept!
{Let me clue you in: you aren't going to change any minds using this strategy.}
And I was pointing out how the function of the example is better accomplished in a better way already....
Hey thats what functionalism is !!!!! Why am I getting blamed for
functionalism, I didnt come up with it !!!!! ?????
damn you Spencer!!!
- BECAUSE -
If you find a functional benefit for anything, it is much easier to make people accept it. Now obviously, not all things which have a functional benefit are good (morally), but if they have some benefit, they are usually accepted. I mean, just look at capitalism for example. Well... ok... bad example.
The reason why I suggested it, even though I do not much believe in ideas of functionalism, nor do I base my opinion of homosexuality on functionalism, is because at the end of the day, it does work in convincing people *(others, not me!!!!)*. It was just for the sake of discussion (that is all!!!!!)Now please... if your gonna chuck chocolate at me.... could you at least make it the darker variety??? like that sweet Belgian kind, you know with those big huge squares??? ... they would probably hurt more though... sigh... another dilemma.
Err... maybe I should just shut up ....
Yeah, I'd quit...while I was ahead.
Well, breathing anyway.
s.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Yeah, I'd quit...while I was ahead.
Well, breathing anyway.
s.
sounds like a plan chief
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I understand the logic. Sort of like greater empathy based on personal experience??
I liked the deepening of empathy idea and transfer of learning idea. Mind you I'm just being officious and difficult here when raising a question about realism.
... So...how would a personal reaction to advances from someone associated with a marginalized sexual minority provide a basis for being more thoughtful and empathetic in the context of "normal" hetero social interactions. These are dissimilar situations - and the "getting hit on" behavior is not really comparable or commensurable. I see even less transferability for the kind of person you seem to have in mind - i.e., someone who shows a hostile reaction to perceived gay advances - someone who sees gays as sexual predators or transgressors of sacrosanct moral values. A person with a strong reaction would likely be "primed" to react aggressively because of their mind set.
Given an attachment to the homophobic/authoritarian ideology out of which they are reacting, I suspect they would be unlikely to learn much of anything from the "snippy with a homosexual" experience that would transfer to "normal" hetero social interactions.
Besides, double standards are not unusual. Just because someone doesn't like to be subjected to abusive behavior themselves doesn't mean they will refrain from abusing others.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Yes, those who don' make it a habit of looking for new things to learn could easily miss this. Those who only see what they want to see would also have difficulty.I understand the logic. Sort of like greater empathy based on personal experience??
I liked the deepening of empathy idea and transfer of learning idea. Mind you I'm just being officious and difficult here when raising a question about realism.
I see even less transferability for the kind of person you seem to have in mind - i.e., someone who shows a hostile reaction to perceived gay advances - someone who sees gays as sexual predators or transgressors of sacrosanct moral values. A person with a strong reaction would likely be "primed" to react aggressively because of their mind set.
Given an attachment to the homophobic/authoritarian ideology out of which they are reacting, I suspect they would be unlikely to learn much of anything from the "snippy with a homosexual" experience that would transfer to "normal" hetero social interactions.
Very, very true.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Do you mean you were consciously setting it up as a strawman argument? (Well, at least you are admitting it.)
Are you kidding? I save the dark chocolate for eating, not for chucking.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hey, Netti-Netti, perhaps you could come up with a better example for c0de's strawman argument about homosexuality not serving a function in society, then? (You gave one on the 'group sport' perspective, how about a realistic one from the individual perspective?) Perhaps you could come up with an example of how heterosexuality serves a function in society?