sporez replied to your post: So first off, apologies to my followers. I know…

i read the whole thing and it sounded like you were arguing with one of those … less insightful teenagers who will pick one point and continue on with it throughout the entire argument and completely disregard anything someone else has to say..

right?  but s/he claimed to be older and not impressionable.  which is more shame if she really is older.

but not even just not listening to what other’s say - the things s/he was saying made absolutely no sense. she was all over the place.

(Source: youngmoneygifs, via taerection)

So first off, apologies to my followers.  I know some of you were upset by the head-to-head that has been plastered on my dash.  The content of the argument was quite upsetting for some of you, and I apologize if it got you upset.  Having said that:

I think it’s completely embarrassing when people on here who are “older” condescend to the younger ones.

A few months ago, I saw some alleged 24-year-old calling a certain someone a teenager who need to learn a lot about life - and it was in a very snarky context.  It was certainly among the more immature things I’ve seen on here.

The person who you all see blasted over my dash since last night - who by the way tried to feign proper argument by posting and misinterpreting a scientific article - is that way as well.  I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt and check out her blog, because maybe she was just being an asshole to me in the context of our argument.  But she responds to EVERYONE as though they’re stupid.  She responded to anon cockily and then added something about them not being very mature and then asking “are you a teenager”?

I call bullshit, because I’ve talked to some teenagers on here who are very insightful, aware, and intelligent.  Using your age as a sticking point is sketchy.

And this is also coming from someone who slammed be for bringing up that I’m a college grad.  Apparently my achieved status as a graduate student isn’t relevant, but his/her age over others is.  Classy.

And aside from her shooting off at the hip at everyone who disagrees with him/her, s/he used my use of the word “bitching” to say that anything else I say is irrelevant - despite the fact that she took the time to type out a long response in the first place.  So s/he can act like a disrespectful, assumptive jerk who can’t construct a clear, logical argument, but my use of one words negates all the sound information I presented - information which I’m convinced s/he either did not read at all or genuinely could not understand because it was above her head (and you all who have followed me for awhile know I’m not saying that to be a jerk - I will take the time to explain my jargony language if asked nicely).  And then s/he used a Mark Twain quote and I was like yup…he’s rolling over in his grave right now.

But at the end of this, fact: If one needs to call other people immature or condescend to them, it is a prime sign of immaturity.  Shut.  The fuck.  Up. And while you’re shutting the fuck up, grow the fuck up.

the-rising-gods:

squickz:

the-rising-gods:

squickz:

the-rising-gods:

I’ve been giving some though to this idea of shipping and the sudden turn of teenage girls regarding homosexual relationships.This may have started with the rise of anime and visual kei but I’m focusing on k-pop here.

I’ve always wanted a guy gay friend since the beginning of my teenage years. It’s true. And there have been great and smart men in history that have been reported as gay, BUT analysing the homosexual relationship objectively with all that it involves: the valid conclusion - the female and male bodies are designed to complete each other.

How odd.

And as a gay man, I find myself quite offended.

“It’s only half true that homosexuality is biologically and/or inherited”

This is an unfounded and actually meaningless statement, demonstrating a clear lack of any knowledge of the research on the factors that influence the expression of homosexuality in various populations.  Furthermore, conceptualizations of sexuality have changed over time - as the poster seems to acknowledge but not actually account for from a sociological perspective.

“analysing the homosexual relationship objectively”

There is nothing objective about this post, as it has clear implications of heterosexism.

“On the other hand, the sexual intercourse between two males, even if in the past was, sometimes, something that was deemed normal - in ages when immorality was blooming”

Like this quote.  Sexual intercourse between two males is immoral then?  If, as the poster says, it is the “sexual intercourse” that is the problem (as the poster separated the act of intercourse from the “bromance” aspect), many heterosexual couples who also engage in anal intercourse.  So then it’s not just male-to-male couples that are immoral?

Also, the “women and men were made for each other” implies that male-to-male love or female-to-female love is not proper, and is actually an over-simplified and unfounded argument in itself.  It seems to be based simply on anatomy - that the penis fits in the vagina.  That is an oversimplistic basis for the argument in that it disregards the complexities of human sexuality, the way society conceptualizes it, and the way individuals experience it.  Furthermore, heterosexual couples do not only engage in vaginal intercourse - many couples explore, and it is naive and erroneous to believe vaginal intercourse is the only way heterosexual couples experience sex.

While this post may be intended to address the dynamics in the fandoms, much of what has been said here is ignorant, heterosexist, and offensive.

Funny that the poster says “get your facts straight”, because this post demonstrates a lack of any effort to get facts straight and is biased and inaccurate in its claims.

You obviously can’t make a difference between love and sex, because flash news: you can love a guy/man and not be attracted sexually to him. Many examples of love( feeling)experiences :

1. Your best/ friend/s

2. Father

3. Brother

4. Family family family

It seems your idea of love is that you automatically have sex with that person. Seems a bit fallacious.

And SURE what I said about the organs involved in male sexual intercourse are not at all what those organs are designed for, I just subjectively made a supposition isn’t it?

Here’s an insight from one gay man and concidentally he said at a point exacly what I said. And I didn’t even read this article before making this post.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

And since people really like to use words which they do not know the full meaning of , I’ll keep doing this

immoral adj

1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt

2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous

3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading

4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings

Trick post. If you would’ve known the history of homosexuality as well as you imply you should have known how this was perceived in ancient times. Or were those times moral. No they weren’t.

This is a part of a message I responded to someone

“I don’t believe oral sex as something bad and not even anal sex between males, but I do think that’s not what they(organs) are made for. These are not natural acts like sex between a female and man, these are unconventional and used as a way to enhance arousal/sexual pleasure or as a way to avoid being boring in the sack ( addition: this applies to heterosexual couples too). I also consider that if other holes in the human body were bigger, humans would have used them in a sexual way. <-Pretty sure you agree with this. I’m basing my statement on the evolution theory, and what a human has to do, in the most simplistic manner of speaking, is perpetuate the species, if possible. Then comes everyone’s personal reasoning and whatever they want to do is their choise. “

And if you truly think you have no freedom of choice in this matter then it’s your own prison of mind.

How about, instead of saying about someone that is ignorant ( and that being your only way of refuting my statements- without bringing credible arguments- EVEN as a homosexual person) get your own facts right. Or keep the speculations to yourself.

Actually everything I said was coming from a collegiate level, from years of research and looking into studies of human sexuality.  For you to claim I bring no credible arguments might just be that I threw in too much jargon and you didn’t understand what I said?    And I am not saying that to be an asshole, I’m serious - some people have asked me for clarification on some of the jargony words I use.

Also, maybe your argument is just not coming across the right way?  Because I’m not the only one offended by what may have been a post with good intentions.

Also, where in my response does it show a lack of understanding of the history of homosexuality?  Where in my response does it show that I can’t decipher between love and sex?  You haven’t demonstrated any of this in what you have typed either, and you have drawn some very odd conclusions about me as a person in here.  I drew out your ideas, which I felt were absolutely heterosexist, but you’re attacking me personally, making assumptions about the kind of person I am.  I addressed your ideas, which I did feel were ignorant and heterosexist, and you launched into personal attacks.  You didn’t analyze anything I said in the way I did your words, so I’m not so sure you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I’m well aware of the history of homosexuality, thanks, and nowhere in my response did it exhibit a lack of that (and if it did, I would like you to point that out instead of just bitching at me).  But what my point was it seems you yourself are equating it with immorality, from the way your post was written.  This may be related to the way you typed your arguments - it does read quite disjointed, so perhaps some areas are open to misinterpretation.  It certainly doesn’t help that you are so condescending and rude.

Basically my response to you was to bring another perspective, even provide a link on the subject ,which I’ve noticed you avoided, and redirected the discussion towards yourself and how you are so offended.  I did not know my opinion was so important to you. Nobody can state their opinion cause somebody can be offended. I wonder how straight K-pop idols feel like.

And your response was to say that you have years of research on human sexuality but not mentioning any of them, in a concrete way. Just stating you are a college graduate seals the deal, it makes it 100% credible, isn’t it. I don’t think so.

In addition, unlike you, I will respond to your questions. I don’t avoid the subject like you did.

“Also, where in my response does it show a lack of understanding of the history of homosexuality? ” This is why – You responded this “Like this quote.  Sexual intercourse between two males is immoral then?” to what I wrote “On the other hand, the sexual intercourse between two males, even if in the past was, sometimes, something that was deemed normal - in ages when immorality was blooming ” , You should have known from the start at what times I was referring to, yet you chose to divert .

“ Where in my response does it show that I can’t decipher between love and sex?” This is why - “Also, the “women and men were made for each other” implies that male-to-male love or female-to-female love is not proper,” - The idea of male/male love, female/female love, can also be father son love, mother daughter love, guys- best friends, types of love that are very proper. You didn’t take that into consideration. Therefore your words that I imply they are not proper is false and narrow-minded.Love does not exist only between couples.

Since you’ve addressed to me with “bitching”, whatever you say next is absolutely irrelevant to me, not that you’ve actually managed to make your point. 

You are very wrong if you think that you are speaking to a teenage  shipper and fanfiction reader that is impressionable, like you tried to imply at the beginning.

I’m making no assumptions about your age nor your gender nor your sexual orientation, because I really have no idea.  I apologize if I made like you were impressionable, because I didn’t think that at all.  And the whole “why does my opinion matter so much” - well, from what I interpreted there were inaccuracies and I decided to comment on it, as you are doing by replying to me as well, right?

And yes, I didn’t get a chance to read the article, and I JUST edited my response to include it - it wasn’t loading on my other computer.

You continue to be condescending - why is that?  And I’m not sure how to explain to you why the post was offensive, but you seem completely unwilling to try to understand, especially with the press the gay community has been getting lately, especially in Europe.  Your responses to people have seem to obliterate sensitivity to the political and social issues surrounding the things you’ve discussed.

And I never said being a college graduate meant anything - but I have done the research. /shrug.  I’ve met Ph.D.s who are complete idiots.  And what shall I do - post the hundreds of journal articles across disciplines I’ve read on Tumblr. O_o  Just from my response alone it’s kind of obvious of the experience.

The articulation of that immortality section was perhaps confusing, because many interpreted it that way.  Once again, clarity of the argument.

And I’m not sure where in the post this was addressing familial love, but I did not see that as part of the argument.  Another person found that part of the argument odd as well.

And once again, I didn’t see any critical analysis - and it absolutely does NOT take a college graduate to analyze critically - in your responses aside from you being more condescending.  Your responses to my responses didn’t critically analyze either.  But I guess that’s just how this cookie is going to crumble.

the-rising-gods:

squickz:

the-rising-gods:

I’ve been giving some though to this idea of shipping and the sudden turn of teenage girls regarding homosexual relationships.This may have started with the rise of anime and visual kei but I’m focusing on k-pop here.

I’ve always wanted a guy gay friend since the beginning of my teenage years. It’s true. And there have been great and smart men in history that have been reported as gay, BUT analysing the homosexual relationship objectively with all that it involves: the valid conclusion - the female and male bodies are designed to complete each other.

How odd.

And as a gay man, I find myself quite offended.

“It’s only half true that homosexuality is biologically and/or inherited”

This is an unfounded and actually meaningless statement, demonstrating a clear lack of any knowledge of the research on the factors that influence the expression of homosexuality in various populations.  Furthermore, conceptualizations of sexuality have changed over time - as the poster seems to acknowledge but not actually account for from a sociological perspective.

“analysing the homosexual relationship objectively”

There is nothing objective about this post, as it has clear implications of heterosexism.

“On the other hand, the sexual intercourse between two males, even if in the past was, sometimes, something that was deemed normal - in ages when immorality was blooming”

Like this quote.  Sexual intercourse between two males is immoral then?  If, as the poster says, it is the “sexual intercourse” that is the problem (as the poster separated the act of intercourse from the “bromance” aspect), many heterosexual couples who also engage in anal intercourse.  So then it’s not just male-to-male couples that are immoral?

Also, the “women and men were made for each other” implies that male-to-male love or female-to-female love is not proper, and is actually an over-simplified and unfounded argument in itself.  It seems to be based simply on anatomy - that the penis fits in the vagina.  That is an oversimplistic basis for the argument in that it disregards the complexities of human sexuality, the way society conceptualizes it, and the way individuals experience it.  Furthermore, heterosexual couples do not only engage in vaginal intercourse - many couples explore, and it is naive and erroneous to believe vaginal intercourse is the only way heterosexual couples experience sex.

While this post may be intended to address the dynamics in the fandoms, much of what has been said here is ignorant, heterosexist, and offensive.

Funny that the poster says “get your facts straight”, because this post demonstrates a lack of any effort to get facts straight and is biased and inaccurate in its claims.

You obviously can’t make a difference between love and sex, because flash news: you can love a guy/man and not be attracted sexually to him. Many examples of love( feeling)experiences :

1. Your best/ friend/s

2. Father

3. Brother

4. Family family family

It seems your idea of love is that you automatically have sex with that person. Seems a bit fallacious.

And SURE what I said about the organs involved in male sexual intercourse are not at all what those organs are designed for, I just subjectively made a supposition isn’t it?

Here’s an insight from one gay man and concidentally he said at a point exacly what I said. And I didn’t even read this article before making this post.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

And since people really like to use words which they do not know the full meaning of , I’ll keep doing this

immoral adj

1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt

2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous

3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading

4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings

Trick post. If you would’ve known the history of homosexuality as well as you imply you should have known how this was perceived in ancient times. Or were those times moral. No they weren’t.

This is a part of a message I responded to someone

“I don’t believe oral sex as something bad and not even anal sex between males, but I do think that’s not what they(organs) are made for. These are not natural acts like sex between a female and man, these are unconventional and used as a way to enhance arousal/sexual pleasure or as a way to avoid being boring in the sack ( addition: this applies to heterosexual couples too). I also consider that if other holes in the human body were bigger, humans would have used them in a sexual way. <-Pretty sure you agree with this. I’m basing my statement on the evolution theory, and what a human has to do, in the most simplistic manner of speaking, is perpetuate the species, if possible. Then comes everyone’s personal reasoning and whatever they want to do is their choise. “

And if you truly think you have no freedom of choice in this matter then it’s your own prison of mind.

How about, instead of saying about someone that is ignorant ( and that being your only way of refuting my statements- without bringing credible arguments- EVEN as a homosexual person) get your own facts right. Or keep the speculations to yourself.

Actually everything I said was coming from a collegiate level, from years of research and looking into studies of human sexuality.  For you to claim I bring no credible arguments might just be that I threw in too much jargon and you didn’t understand what I said?    And I am not saying that to be an asshole, I’m serious - some people have asked me for clarification on some of the jargony words I use.

Also, maybe your argument is just not coming across the right way?  Because I’m not the only one offended by what may have been a post with good intentions.

Also, where in my response does it show a lack of understanding of the history of homosexuality?  Where in my response does it show that I can’t decipher between love and sex?  You haven’t demonstrated any of this in what you have typed either, and you have drawn some very odd conclusions about me as a person in here.  I drew out your ideas, which I felt were absolutely heterosexist, but you’re attacking me personally, making assumptions about the kind of person I am.  I addressed your ideas, which I did feel were ignorant and heterosexist, and you launched into personal attacks.  You didn’t analyze anything I said in the way I did your words, so I’m not so sure you even bothered to read what I wrote.

I’m well aware of the history of homosexuality, thanks, and nowhere in my response did it exhibit a lack of that (and if it did, I would like you to point that out instead of just bitching at me).  But what my point was it seems you yourself are equating it with immorality, from the way your post was written.  This may be related to the way you typed your arguments - it does read quite disjointed, so perhaps some areas are open to misinterpretation.  It certainly doesn’t help that you are so condescending and rude.

EDIT: I didn’t read the article at first because I find Scientific American to be not a reliable source, and I’ve discouraged my students from using it because it is not considered scholarly research.  Some of the references in them are, but they are not scholarly journal articles and at times present information in a more light-hearted context than the hard statistics and firm theoretical framework found in scholarly journals (though I did find that particular article interesting, but again, the source makes me leery).  In fact, an article like that would not fly in a formal graduate research project.  Okay, turning the teacher/research back off.

The main thing I noticed is that the article you present does not coincide with your arguments, perhaps because again, the argument is disjointed.  This article does not address morality, and that is an element that you included in your argument.  The article addresses factual points through the lens of evolutionary psychology - points that were articulated in the original post were in a different context by throwing morality into the fray.

the-rising-gods:

I’ve been giving some though to this idea of shipping and the sudden turn of teenage girls regarding homosexual relationships.This may have started with the rise of anime and visual kei but I’m focusing on k-pop here.

I’ve always wanted a guy gay friend since the beginning of my teenage years. It’s true. And there have been great and smart men in history that have been reported as gay, BUT analysing the homosexual relationship objectively with all that it involves: the valid conclusion - the female and male bodies are designed to complete each other.

How odd.

And as a gay man, I find myself quite offended.

“It’s only half true that homosexuality is biologically and/or inherited”

This is an unfounded and actually meaningless statement, demonstrating a clear lack of any knowledge of the research on the factors that influence the expression of homosexuality in various populations.  Furthermore, conceptualizations of sexuality have changed over time - as the poster seems to acknowledge but not actually account for from a sociological perspective.

“analysing the homosexual relationship objectively”

There is nothing objective about this post, as it has clear implications of heterosexism.

“On the other hand, the sexual intercourse between two males, even if in the past was, sometimes, something that was deemed normal - in ages when immorality was blooming”

Like this quote.  Sexual intercourse between two males is immoral then?  If, as the poster says, it is the “sexual intercourse” that is the problem (as the poster separated the act of intercourse from the “bromance” aspect), many heterosexual couples who also engage in anal intercourse.  So then it’s not just male-to-male couples that are immoral?

Also, the “women and men were made for each other” implies that male-to-male love or female-to-female love is not proper, and is actually an over-simplified and unfounded argument in itself.  It seems to be based simply on anatomy - that the penis fits in the vagina.  That is an oversimplistic basis for the argument in that it disregards the complexities of human sexuality, the way society conceptualizes it, and the way individuals experience it.  Furthermore, heterosexual couples do not only engage in vaginal intercourse - many couples explore, and it is naive and erroneous to believe vaginal intercourse is the only way heterosexual couples experience sex.

While this post may be intended to address the dynamics in the fandoms, much of what has been said here is ignorant, heterosexist, and offensive.

Funny that the poster says “get your facts straight”, because this post demonstrates a lack of any effort to get facts straight and is biased and inaccurate in its claims.

(Source: jeonjeongguk)