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.
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 :
Your best/ friend/s
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.
And since people really like to use words which they do not know the full meaning of , I’ll keep doing this
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.