In the jousei series Oruchuban Ebichu, the character of Ma-kun is apparently attracted to the main hamster character of Ebichu. He treats her to ice cream and blushes around her, but never makes any overt sexual gestures (since he's a human and she's a goddamn anthropomorphized hamster...) Instead, he channels that sexual energy into pleasing his girlfriend, who has no idea he's turned on by, well, a cute rodent. Everyone is happy, no one is harmed.
Ma-kun doesn't deny his attraction to Ebichu, but he doesn't act on it directly either. And he's not a zoophobe as a shameful response to it.
But that's where a lot of homophobes land - they are faintly turned on by homoerotic imagery, are shamed by it, and go into full blown crazy denial mode over it. That doesn't mean they're necessarily gay, and in fact most of them are still very much het. It does mean, however, that they're afraid they might be gay, and go overboard attacking gays as if by punishing their own internal arousal at the homosexual act they can banish it.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie ****" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.
That is, technically, untrue. Being aroused by that would, in fact, make one a @#%^phile. It's the quality of being sexually attracted to children. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile, and a child rapist.
Apologies if I'm missing something here. I'm sure whatever you're discussing, Alma is wrong for a litany of other, valid reasons.
I believe that wanting to stick your ***** in a child is what would classify you as a @#%^. You can't help if it arouses you, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything, unless seeing it arouses you AND makes you want to go out and ***** little babies.
That seems like a bit of an arbitrary distinction to me. Whether or not you can help it doesn't really weigh into the dictionary definition of the word. If you're attracted to them, you are one.
Allegory's DSM definition is interesting though; I hadn't heard that. But that's just another take on the word where it needs to serve another purpose.
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
I don't see how that's comparable.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
I don't see how that's comparable.
I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your ***** doesn't know that what your seeing is child ****. Does that make more sense?
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
I don't see how that's comparable.
I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your ***** doesn't know that what your seeing is child ****. Does that make more sense?
Ah, okay. I'm with ya again. I guess that's an issue with the regular ol' definition being more general. I think that when I read it, the "knowing" part is implied. It strikes me as suggesting habit, though I don't really know why. Might be a notch in the belt of the DSM version.
Pedophilia is weird. And somewhow I think I'm understanding it less as we talk about it.
I think I'm right in saying that that particular scientific study about homoerotic images and homophobia was designed much more around the investigation of Stumbled-Upon imagery than Sought-Out imagery.
Alma's posts are so full of misunderstanding and leaps of illogic that I'm not even going to try to answer them. Kudos to you all with the energy.
Alma's posts are so full of misunderstanding and leaps of illogic that I'm not even going to try to answer them. Kudos to you all with the energy.
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about pedophilia and bestiality.
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.
Don't forget the toasters!!
Edited, Jan 26th 2012 12:23am by Eske
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.
I'm sorry.*
*This is not personal apology, but commiseration.
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie ****" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.
If you want to have an adult discussion about whether or. It gay **** makes you gay, let me know.
If you want to have an adult discussion about whether or. It gay **** makes you gay, let me know.
When you decide to have a discussion over YOUR COMMENT that you made that the participants are irrelevant, then let me know.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie ****" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.
That is, technically, untrue. Being aroused by that would, in fact, make one a @#%^phile. It's the quality of being sexually attracted to children. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile, and a child rapist.
This.
Eske wrote:
I'm sure whatever you're discussing, Alma is wrong for a litany of other, valid reasons.
Nope, that was it. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
That's not equitable because your body doesn't differentiate if the person is a man, woman, girl, boy, ugly, fat, skinny, etc. Your body will naturally react regardless. What we do as people is all psychological. We aren't attracted to people based on their physical structure, but our bodies don't do the same discrimination.
We're talking about watching ****. Unless you're counting yourself, there is NO physical contact in watching **** by yourself. The stimulation originates from viewing.
This is what I corrected myself in the fact that it's able to have sex with a person you find unattractive. It's the physical contact that stimulates you.
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
I don't see how that's comparable.
I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your ***** doesn't know that what your seeing is child ****. Does that make more sense?
Exactly, but your MIND does... There is no physical stimulation for your ***** to react. It reacted based on other senses.
Besides, we're not talking about "stumbling" on some ****, we're talking about ACTIVELY watching it.
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.
It is, on many levels.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Almalieque wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
Almalieque wrote:
post #2137.
I'm done.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
I'm done.
Are you? ARE YOU??
Nadenu wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I'm done.
Are you? ARE YOU??
I am, I promise!
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Work complete?
At first I though alma was just a typical self hating closet gay. Now that he's dragging child **** into the argument, I think it might be much much worse.
I've lurked through a lot and I still can't really pin Alma down (not in the gay wrestler sense).
He thinks homosexuality is a "personality" trait, much like hating broccoli or being short-tempered. At least, that is how I understood it. He seems to like to classify and quantify things in odd ways. Or, at the very least, classify them in ways that most of the population would not. I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
He thinks homosexuality is a "personality" trait, much like hating broccoli or being short-tempered. At least, that is how I understood it. He seems to like to classify and quantify things in odd ways. Or, at the very least, classify them in ways that most of the population would not. I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
Quote:
I've lurked through a lot and I still can't really pin Alma down (not in the gay wrestler sense).
Dozer wrote:
I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
It's like the continuous journey to the end of the rainbow. You know you'll never find the pot of gold, but you might pick-up other interesting tidbits along the way.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Dozer wrote:
I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.
It's like the continuous journey to the end of the rainbow. You know you'll never find the pot of gold, but you might pick-up other interesting tidbits along the way.
What a long, strange trip it's been. *
* For reference, please see post 206.
Nilatai wrote:
No, not at all. What you said is that being sexually aroused by homoerotic imagery made you a homosexual. That's what you said.
My point is that things that you find sexually exciting will sexually excite you. I'm not sure where the confusion comes in. You know that to be true.
If you're ACTIVELY watching something that sexually stimulates you, then that's an INDICATION that you might be sexually attracted to whatever you're watching.
I'm simply countering that nonsense that the participants are irrelevant. That would imply that a Kim Kardashian sex tape is as equally sexually pleasing as a Rosie O'Donnel sex tape. PARTICIPANTS play a role in your sexual excitement and that's a FACT.
If you ACTIVELY watch **** with overweight women, then that's an indication of you being attracted to overweight women. That is not the same as if you STUMBLE on it and became sexually aroused for some period of time.
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
At first I though alma was just a typical self hating closet gay. Now that he's dragging child **** into the argument, I think it might be much much worse.
You're making a distinction when Belkira claimed that there wasn't. If the argument is that the sexual activities are what stimulate you NOT the participants, then that includes everyone and everything. Obviously the participants make a difference if you're making a distinction of ****.
You can't say "Participants don't matter" then turn around say "THAT'S DIFFERENT!".
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC