347 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

OT:

Why is it that each time the subject is broached, someone(s) feels the compelling need to come and enlighten the whole planet with (quite literally) their thoughts on yaoi, complete with TMI stuff and lots of -phoby and paleo-sexism thrown in for good measure?

How is the state of anyone's privates, their intended purpose, or what you do and don't do with them related in any way to handling background relationships in DA3? More importantly, why should we care? /OT

So, what would be the best and most satisfying ways to handle those background thingies without it becoming too invasive, resource greedy, while being present enough to count and be noticeable?

Modifié par Sutekh, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:16 .

[esper]

FreshIstay wrote...

esper wrote...

You are an homophobe or quite frankly sexist too. You are just using the excuse that I have a gay Uncle to rationalize it.

But when you say stuff like: 'It emasculating", "Being hit on by a man is offending because it gives of the impression I am someone who like..."  I do think you used the word "dirty." And then proceed to say that it is not the same when a man hits on a woman because she has an vagina. If someone offends they are being in the wrong. You could have admitted that you felt uncomfortable with men hitting on you, because you don't like the thought of gay sex. That is fair. But no, you went with, offending, which implies that the hitter is in the wrong. And then you demostrate a double standard where women should not feel offended because (and you are implicit saying this wherever you mean to or not) women have a vagina who fits with your penis.

How are you not an homophobe and sexist?

Please dont label me, Im sure you wouldnt like it if I did the same.

If You like Turtle Sex im not required to be okay with the idea of Turtle sex, but you can love your Turtle I wouldnt treat you any differently because you like Turtle Sex....and before you take it to the extreme...it' s an analogy.  Im perfectly fine with whatever kind of sex anyone like' s, but my personal thought on gay sex is that it' s digusting....How' s that homophobic? Should I stand on a mantle and profess Gay sex is the most lovely form of sex that exists?  I dont think that. BUT WHAT I DO THINK IS PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOVE WHOEVER THEY WANT AND ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE. 

Sigh... one last post. What homophic is you saying that you have a right to be offended by a man hitting on you. That you use words and like 'emasculating' and dirty.

What is sexist is saying that you as a man has that right to be offended, but a woman has not because an vagina and a penis fits together.
 (This was you argument).

[Harle Cerulean]

FreshIstay wrote...

Xiomara wrote..

Don't you mean you find anal sex disgusting? Anal sex isn't really "gay sex" in itself as since someone has already stated - lots of straight couples engage in it.

I wish you guys would quit trying to make me look like a homophobe, I have a Uncle who has a husband and they are both active members of my life who support me and love me in everything i do, they show up to my games, they help me and my girlfriend with rent ocassionly, We love them.  

That said, SEX between memebers of the same gender is disgusting to me  IMO, LOVE between two members of the same sex is the same LOVE everyone  has. 

Dude, you make yourself look homophobic all on your own, by expressing your homophobic views.  Having a gay uncle who is active in your life speaks far more to his patience and ability.to tolerate you despite you thinking he's dirty, disgusting, and ~not a real man~ than it does about you.

There's nothing wrong with people who read your homophobic, sexist words calling you on what you say.  Your own words are right there, proving them correct.

[AlexanderCousland]

esper wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Why should anyone have to feel offended, flattered, or for that matter any other emotion at all when they are approached for something in which they have no interest?

If somebody "hits on" you in a way in which you are not interested (whether this be same sex, opposite sex, or any sex), what is wrong with handling that approach in a mature way, and politely rejecting it? There's no need to express flattery, offence, thanks, disgust, or anything else. Is there?

Reading the posts above, I really feel like I'm missing some obvious piece of information. It's part of our social structure that from time to time one person may approach another and suggest beginning a relationship - be that a friendship, a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship, an illicit relationship, or any other kind. Why isn't "no" an acceptable answer? Why should anyone feel offended by this? Or flattered?

Maybe I just don't get it.

Well, in my case it is because I have met men that wouldn't take 'thank you, but no thanks' for an real answer. That said, I don't get offended anymore now that I know why I feel uncomfortable with sexual advances, but I get angry when someone (implicit) states that I have to be flattered by it or accept it because I am a women, but they have the right to be offended by the same kind of approach that makes them as uncomfortable as it makes me.

It is the double standard that makes me angry, so angry that I think it is time to bow out of this thread or get some fresh air, before I smash somebody's head in.

Dont bring double standards up like they only apply one way. We can go on an on about the privelages between Man and Woman. Furthermore you' ve stated that your offenended, and you dont like it when men hit on you. and it's perfectly fine that you feel that way. IT'S YOUR FEELINGS. but when I say the same thing you get mad because I say It, I have the same right to be offended as you do. and your mad? 

[Plaintiff]

FreshIstay wrote...
Dont bring double standards up like they only apply one way. We can go on an on about the privelages between Man and Woman. Furthermore you' ve stated that your offenended, and you dont like it when men hit on you. and it's perfectly fine that you feel that way. IT'S YOUR FEELINGS. but when I say the same thing you get mad because I say It, I have the same right to be offended as you do. and your mad? 

Nobody cares that you don't want to have gay sex. That is not the reason that they are calling you a homophobe.

Their issue is that you describe homosexuals and homosexual sex in offensive terms. Specifically, you said that gay sex is "filthy" and "emasculating', meaning that gay men aren't "real men".

You say you have a gay uncle, that you claim to love. How do you think he would feel if you told him to his face that you thought he was filthy, and not a "real man"?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:32 .

[Harle Cerulean]

Sutekh wrote...

OT:

Why is it that each time the subject is broached, someone(s) feels the compelling need to come and enlighten the whole planet with (quite literally) their thoughts on yaoi, complete with TMI stuff and lots of -phoby and paleo-sexism thrown in for good measure?

How is the state of anyone's privates, their intended purpose, or what you do and don't do with them related in any way to handling background relationships in DA3? More importantly, why should we care? /OT

So, what would be the best and most satisfying ways to handle those background thingies without it becoming too invasive, resource greedy, while being present enough to count and be noticeable?

There's plenty of ways, really.  For example, one completely background NPC in DA2 is a guy wandering around in front of the Chantry calling for his dog, and saying how his wife wiil be upset if he doesn't find the dog.  Things like that, but with a gay relationship instead would provide little glimpses that such relationships do in fact exist in the background and are no more 'obtrusive' or 'wasting resources' than the man looking for his wife's dog. 

The idea that it's somehow a 'waste of resources' to include these things ignores the fact that there are going to be background NPCs providing life and flavour to the world, and there is absolutely no reason some of that life and flavour can't represent gay and lesbian relationships.

[AlexanderCousland]

esper wrote...

Sigh... one last post. What homophic is you saying that you have a right to be offended by a man hitting on you. That you use words and like 'emasculating' and dirty.

What is sexist is saying that you as a man has that right to be offended, but a woman has not because an vagina and a penis fits together.
 (This was you argument).

So, It' s my opinion on the act of SEX between members of the same gender. That doesnt mean I hate Gay people or discriminate against them.  

Homophobic- Fear or Contempt of Gay or Lesbians.

I dont Fear anyone, or think anyone is beneath me because of their gender or sexual orientation.  

As a woman you can be offended by whatever makes you uncomfortable, men certainly haven't stopped women from feeling how they want to feel. It' s okay for you to be offended, Im not against you for feeling that way. So why are you against me? I never said Women shouldn't be offended, I was merely giving the reason why It' s more common for men to hit on women, and yes because penis and vagina fit together. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 15 janvier 2013 - 01:50 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Plaintiff wrote...
Nobody cares that you don't want to have gay sex. That is not the reason that they are calling you a homophobe.

Their issue is that you describe homosexuals and homosexual sex in offensive terms. Specifically, you said that gay sex is "filthy" and "emasculating', meaning that gay men aren't "real men".

You say you have a gay uncle, that you claim to love. How do you think he would feel if you told him to his face that you thought he was filthy, and not a "real man"?

I dont think my Uncle' s are filthy, I think what they do in bed is filthy. 

[Plaintiff]

FreshIstay wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Nobody cares that you don't want to have gay sex. That is not the reason that they are calling you a homophobe.

Their issue is that you describe homosexuals and homosexual sex in offensive terms. Specifically, you said that gay sex is "filthy" and "emasculating', meaning that gay men aren't "real men".

You say you have a gay uncle, that you claim to love. How do you think he would feel if you told him to his face that you thought he was filthy, and not a "real man"?

I dont think my Uncle' s are filthy, I think what they do in bed is filthy. 

I dare you to tell them that next time you see them. Let me know how it goes.

[Emzamination]

FreshIstay, knock it off. Reading your argument from the beginning, I don't understand what compelled you to randomly slip in your views on how gross you think homosexual intercourse is, but it's highly offensive. If you're trying to subtly insult gays, I suggest finding a new subject to focus on, you're terrible at it. Any mod that sees your post is likely to give you a very long vacation from the forums.

[LadyMalstroem]

FreshIstay wrote...

Gazardiel wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...
What I was referring to was being hit t on by another man, in which my point stands, it's offensive for a man to make advances on me, it imply' s i look like i want to be penetrated or that i would put myself inside a filthy place....offensive.
However anyone chooses to live is fine, sexuality doesnt define someone' s character IMO, My Uncle has a Husband and I love them both, I just find thought of homsexual sex disgusting and resent being advanced upon by members of my own gender. Off topic...

Fascinating.  I wonder what it means when a man makes advances on a woman in your worldview...

Very different. Women' s sexual anatomy the very organ that gives them sexual pleasure and brings life into this world is designed to be penetrated. I understand this doesnt mean all Women want that but it doesnt change the design, If my penis is inserted into a vagina a pregnancy can occur and life created. Men' s sexual anatomy is designed to penetrate, there's no receiver organ. Your butt is part of your digestive system, it' s a place where old food youve eaten leave' s in the form of a stinky lump. I understand guys can be jerks, but life is created by Man approaching Woman or vice versa. Man is not Woman, Woman is not Man. IMO when a man has been penetrated he has entered into a form of submission to another man, thus his masculinity is lesser, not to mention it' s reviling where the picther has put himself. Same for Women and Women IMO. but thats just sex, Love is much more then sex and anyone should be able to Love who they want and I wont fight against them, it' s our own goddamn right as human' s. 

If God didn't want men to take it in the butt, why did he place the prostate where it is?

Just kidding. Anyway, the whole "Penis+Vagina=Pregnant so therefore anything else is wrong" argument is just so confusing to me. Obviously sex can be about other things than procreation.

Maybe you're not a homophobe, but some of the things you've stated are homophobic. There's a difference, and there's no need to get so defensive. Some people here are just trying to point out that you're being pretty condescending toward gay men who like to engage in anal sex. I disagree that being on the receiving end makes a man less masculine or filthy in some way, and I think you should rethink your language if you don't want to come across as a homophobe (which, by the way, is about a lot more than being afraid of gay people.)

What people do in their bedroom is not an insignificant part of their lives, so don't think you're not insulting them when you call their bedroom activities disgusting.

[AlexanderCousland]

Emzamination wrote...

FreshIstay, knock it off. Reading your argument from the beginning, I don't understand what compelled you to randomly slip in your views on how gross you think homosexual intercourse is, but it's highly offensive. If you're trying to subtly insult gays, I suggest finding a new subject to focus on, you're terrible at it. Any mod that sees your post is likely to give you a very long vacation from the forums.

Sorry:blush: wasnt trying to offend people. 

[AlexanderCousland]

Plaintiff wrote...

I dare you to tell them that next time you see them. Let me know how it goes.

Trust me, he isnt so sensitive about it as you all seem to be. 

[AlexanderCousland]

LadyMalstroem wrote...


If God didn't want men to take it in the butt, why did he place the prostate where it is?

Just kidding. Anyway, the whole "Penis+Vagina=Pregnant so therefore anything else is wrong" argument is just so confusing to me. Obviously sex can be about other things than procreation.

Maybe you're not a homophobe, but some of the things you've stated are homophobic. There's a difference, and there's no need to get so defensive. Some people here are just trying to point out that you're being pretty condescending toward gay men who like to engage in anal sex. I disagree that being on the receiving end makes a man less masculine or filthy in some way, and I think you should rethink your language if you don't want to come across as a homophobe (which, by the way, is about a lot more than being afraid of gay people.)

What people do in their bedroom is not an insignificant part of their lives, so don't think you're not insulting them when you call their bedroom activities disgusting.

I wouldnt be offended if someone called my bedroom activities filthy or disgusting, they probably are:lol: even so, its just their personal opinion on my sex, which they know nothing about.
I really wasnt trying to have a go at anyone and I' ve expressed numerous times I beleive in free love 

[Knight of Dane]

esper wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Xiomara wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Are you saying that it is ok to be gay as long as you don't have sex?

No Im saying I personally find gay sex disgusting, but Gay love is just as legitimate as any Love, It' s Love. 

Don't you mean you find anal sex disgusting? Anal sex isn't really "gay sex" in itself as since someone has already stated - lots of straight couples engage in it.

I kind of feel similar to FreshIstay..

I respect gay people, accept their love for each other and support any gay rights activism, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone mind you; which I have never heard any homosexuals do really...
But the simple thought of finding myself in sexual activities with another man.. Disturps me.. I don't know if disgust is the right word for it, but it's as close as I can think of right now.
But as said, this does not mean I cannot allow others to engage in those activities, it goes like that the same way I respect people who are in the army but I would never commit to the millitary myself.

But see, the difference is that you admit that the problem lies with you not the gay man. You do not use words like 'offending' or 'emasciulating' or 'dirty'.

You simply admit: 'that the thought makes me uncomfortable'. There is a world in difference.

Heh you make me feel like a good guy! 

[Sutekh]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

There's plenty of ways, really.  For example, one completely background NPC in DA2 is a guy wandering around in front of the Chantry calling for his dog, and saying how his wife wiil be upset if he doesn't find the dog.  Things like that, but with a gay relationship instead would provide little glimpses that such relationships do in fact exist in the background and are no more 'obtrusive' or 'wasting resources' than the man looking for his wife's dog.

Yeah, I was thinking about things like that myself. Nothing more that what's already been done for general ambiant dialogues, only with that "twist" (for lack of a better word). It's perfect, because being in the background, it shows how normal and usual it is. It doesn't have to be limited to that though (I wish it's not, actually), but for ambiant, it's nice.

The idea that it's somehow a 'waste of resources' to include these things ignores the fact that there are going to be background NPCs providing life and flavour to the world, and there is absolutely no reason some of that life and flavour can't represent gay and lesbian relationships.

I don't think it's a waste of resource. Hope I didn't come across that way. By resource greedy, I meant that we have to take zots into account, whetever the subject. For instance, if we want to see people holding hands (whatever their respective gender), or any background thing to feel "organic", how resource greedy would that be? (I have no idea).

[Harle Cerulean]

Sutekh wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

There's plenty of ways, really.  For example, one completely background NPC in DA2 is a guy wandering around in front of the Chantry calling for his dog, and saying how his wife wiil be upset if he doesn't find the dog.  Things like that, but with a gay relationship instead would provide little glimpses that such relationships do in fact exist in the background and are no more 'obtrusive' or 'wasting resources' than the man looking for his wife's dog.

Yeah, I was thinking about things like that myself. Nothing more that what's already been done for general ambiant dialogues, only with that "twist" (for lack of a better word). It's perfect, because being in the background, it shows how normal and usual it is. It doesn't have to be limited to that though (I wish it's not, actually), but for ambiant, it's nice.

The idea that it's somehow a 'waste of resources' to include these things ignores the fact that there are going to be background NPCs providing life and flavour to the world, and there is absolutely no reason some of that life and flavour can't represent gay and lesbian relationships.

I don't think it's a waste of resource. Hope I didn't come across that way. By resource greedy, I meant that we have to take zots into account, whetever the subject. For instance, if we want to see people holding hands (whatever their respective gender), or any background thing to feel "organic", how resource greedy would that be? (I have no idea).

Ah, no, that wasn't aimed at you, just general frustration because I know there are people who do think like that, even though they're fine with it when it's the omnipresent het that's getting the scrap of resources to pay the voice actor for the two lines to make the world feel more alive.  I'm pretty sure we have about the same opinons on this topic, really, from going through and reading the thread.  

[esper]

FreshIstay wrote...

esper wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Why should anyone have to feel offended, flattered, or for that matter any other emotion at all when they are approached for something in which they have no interest?

If somebody "hits on" you in a way in which you are not interested (whether this be same sex, opposite sex, or any sex), what is wrong with handling that approach in a mature way, and politely rejecting it? There's no need to express flattery, offence, thanks, disgust, or anything else. Is there?

Reading the posts above, I really feel like I'm missing some obvious piece of information. It's part of our social structure that from time to time one person may approach another and suggest beginning a relationship - be that a friendship, a romantic relationship, a sexual relationship, an illicit relationship, or any other kind. Why isn't "no" an acceptable answer? Why should anyone feel offended by this? Or flattered?

Maybe I just don't get it.

Well, in my case it is because I have met men that wouldn't take 'thank you, but no thanks' for an real answer. That said, I don't get offended anymore now that I know why I feel uncomfortable with sexual advances, but I get angry when someone (implicit) states that I have to be flattered by it or accept it because I am a women, but they have the right to be offended by the same kind of approach that makes them as uncomfortable as it makes me.

It is the double standard that makes me angry, so angry that I think it is time to bow out of this thread or get some fresh air, before I smash somebody's head in.

Dont bring double standards up like they only apply one way. We can go on an on about the privelages between Man and Woman. Furthermore you' ve stated that your offenended, and you dont like it when men hit on you. and it's perfectly fine that you feel that way. IT'S YOUR FEELINGS. but when I say the same thing you get mad because I say It, I have the same right to be offended as you do. and your mad? 

Did you read my post: Should I bold it for you?

I don't like it when people hit on me, but as stated I have acknowlegde for myself why it is and do not get offended anymore, because I know that the uncomfortability I feel comes from me.
.
You have every right to feel uncomfortable, but you do not have the right to be offended because offended implies that they have purposely done something to do you wrong,  nor is it all right to call it dirty or any other thing. I also don't say that you have to be flattered by it (it is hard to be flattered by something that makes you uncomfortable). But you stated in your previous posts that it was all right for men to hit on women, but not all right for men to hit on men and as an excuse you used because women have a vagina and men have a penis at they fit together.

You have directly said in your posts that you are offended when a man hits on you, because that means they think you look like: 'one who wants to be penetrated' then you said it was not the same when a man hit on a woman because because woman had a vagina: Implying that all woman wants to be penetrated (amonst other thing).

If you simply said, 'the thought of gay sex makes me unconfortable' you and I would not have had a problem, but is not what you said, you said very clear: 'The thought of gay sex is offensive' and then you went on to be sexist and said, but 'women shouldn't be uncomfortable at the thought of sex with men because they have a vagina'. Those two statements are offensive and that is the only way (thanks to the words you used) to understand it.

[Fraq Hound]

I usually stay out of these threads because frankly, I don't give a damn about this stuff. Whether it's in the game or isn't in the game, either way is fine with me.

However, this particular thread is kinda ridiculous and I just cannot help myself.

The DA franchise is a series of VIDEO GAMES about fighting monsters and bandits with swords and spells. Now I grant you, it is also a game about forming relationships and creating bonds between people. Up to this point, these relationships have ALWAYS included the option to pursue same sex relationships, if you are so inclined.

And that's great!

I'm happy that nearly everybody and anybody can experience and enjoy that aspect of these games, because the romance storylines are personally one of my favorite things about Bioware's stories.

That being said, coming in here and complaining that this game doesn't have enough homosexuality in it? Asking that there be numerous examples of same sex couples displayed throughout the game? C'mon people!

Again, this is a freaking VIDEO GAME! It's not a political ad for the advocation of the gay community. If the developers decided to fill the game with gay couples everywhere you look, would it really make your experience with the game that much better?

I just wish people would focus on the game and ways to make it better, instead of droning on and on about whether or not their personal sexual tastes are being given enough time in the spot light.

"I think there should be more gay, overwieght, disabled, people in the game. Who are slightly too fond of animals, and come from a broken home, but married to their half sibling who is of a different race and comes from a happy home. Oh, and they should have red hair because frankly there just aren't enough main protagonists in games with fiery red hair."

GIVE ME A BREAK PEOPLE!

Modifié par Fraq Hound, 15 janvier 2013 - 03:56 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Esper wrote..

Did you read my post: Should I bold it for you?

I don't like it when people hit on me, but as stated I have acknowlegde for myself why it is and do not get offended anymore, because I know that the uncomfortability I feel comes from me.
.
You have every right to feel uncomfortable, but you do not have the right to be offended because offended implies that they have purposely done something to do you wrong,  nor is it all right to call it dirty or any other thing. I also don't say that you have to be flattered by it (it is hard to be flattered by something that makes you uncomfortable). But you stated in your previous posts that it was all right for men to hit on women, but not all right for men to hit on men and as an excuse you used because women have a vagina and men have a penis at they fit together.

You have directly said in your posts that you are offended when a man hits on you, because that means they think you look like: 'one who wants to be penetrated' then you said it was not the same when a man hit on a woman because because woman had a vagina: Implying that all woman wants to be penetrated (amonst other thing).

If you simply said, 'the thought of gay sex makes me unconfortable' you and I would not have had a problem, but is not what you said, you said very clear: 'The thought of gay sex is offensive' and then you went on to be sexist and said, but 'women shouldn't be uncomfortable at the thought of sex with men because they have a vagina'. Those two statements are offensive and that is the only way (thanks to the words you used) to understand it.

Please stop stuffing word' s in my mouth.

1. I clearly say, Not all Women want men Hitting on them. I was explainig why it' s more common, and showing why it' s not the same thing, because guess what, IT' S NOT, A Woman hitting on me is different than if it were a Man.

2. I dont think All Women want to be penetrated.

3. Thought of Gay Sex is not offensive, It' s disgusting, again, MY THOUGHT ya know, the one in my head that imagines things and projects images. A Man hitting on me is offensive....perhaps i should elaborate, It's offensive to My Ego, me personally. 

4. I never said "Women shouldnt be uncomfortable with the thought of sex with men because they have a vagina", That' s absurd. What I said was, Women should feel however they want to, Men certainly haven' t stopped them from doing that. 

[AlexanderCousland]

Fraq Hound wrote...

I usually stay out of these threads because frankly, I don't give a damn about this stuff. Whether it's in the game or isn't in the game, either way is fine with me.

However, this particular thread is kinda ridiculous and I just cannot help myself.

The DA franchise is a series of VIDEO GAMES about fighting monsters and bandits with swords and spells. Now I grant you, it is also a game about forming relationships and creating bonds between people. Up to this point, these relationships have ALWAYS included the option to pursue same sex relationships, if you are so inclined.

And that's great!

I'm happy that nearly everybody and anybody can experience and enjoy that aspect of these games, because the romance storylines are personally one of my favorite things about Bioware's stories.

That being said, coming in here and complaining that this game doesn't have enough homosexuality in it? Asking that there be numerous examples of same sex couples displayed throughout the game? C'mon people!

Again, this is a freaking VIDEO GAME! It's not a political ad for the advocation of the gay community. If the developers decided to fill the game with gay couples everywhere you look, would it really make your experience with the game that much better?

I just wish people would focus on the game and ways to make it better, instead of droning on and on about whether or not their personal sexual tastes are being given enough time in the spot light.

"I think there should be more gay, overwieght, disabled, people in the game. Who are slightly too fond of animals, and come from a broken home, but married to their half sibling who is of a different race and comes from a happy home. Oh, and they should have red hair because frankly there just aren't enough main protagonists in games with fiery red hair."

GIVE ME A BREAK PEOPLE!

[esper]

FreshIstay wrote...

Esper wrote..

Did you read my post: Should I bold it for you?

I don't like it when people hit on me, but as stated I have acknowlegde for myself why it is and do not get offended anymore, because I know that the uncomfortability I feel comes from me.
.
You have every right to feel uncomfortable, but you do not have the right to be offended because offended implies that they have purposely done something to do you wrong,  nor is it all right to call it dirty or any other thing. I also don't say that you have to be flattered by it (it is hard to be flattered by something that makes you uncomfortable). But you stated in your previous posts that it was all right for men to hit on women, but not all right for men to hit on men and as an excuse you used because women have a vagina and men have a penis at they fit together.

You have directly said in your posts that you are offended when a man hits on you, because that means they think you look like: 'one who wants to be penetrated' then you said it was not the same when a man hit on a woman because because woman had a vagina: Implying that all woman wants to be penetrated (amonst other thing).

If you simply said, 'the thought of gay sex makes me unconfortable' you and I would not have had a problem, but is not what you said, you said very clear: 'The thought of gay sex is offensive' and then you went on to be sexist and said, but 'women shouldn't be uncomfortable at the thought of sex with men because they have a vagina'. Those two statements are offensive and that is the only way (thanks to the words you used) to understand it.

Please stop stuffing word' s in my mouth.

1. I clearly say, Not all Women want men Hitting on them. I was explainig why it' s more common, and showing why it' s not the same thing, because guess what, IT' S NOT, A Woman hitting on me is different than if it were a Man.

2. I dont think All Women want to be penetrated.

3. Thought of Gay Sex is not offensive, It' s disgusting, again, MY THOUGHT ya know, the one in my head that imagines things and projects images. A Man hitting on me is offensive....perhaps i should elaborate, It's offensive to My Ego, me personally. 

4. I never said "Women shouldnt be uncomfortable with the thought of sex with men because they have a vagina", That' s absurd. What I said was, Women should feel however they want to, Men certainly haven' t stopped them from doing that. 

That is the only way to understand your words.

Offensive means somene does you wrong. It means you have been insulted. And the very use of a word as 'disgusting' is not a lucky choice when you are trying to point out that you are no homophobic. Try less adjective for your own sake.

You do say that about women because you said it in a reaction to a person who asked if you feeling offended was the same if a man hits on a woman. From the context of your words that was how they would be understood. I went into this discussing trying to make fun of your offending sentence slur by mimicking your words so you could see the absurdity in them and how they would be understood, but apprently you don't see how hurtfull and homophic these words are.

It is not I who are putting words in your mouth, it is you who does not understand how offensive your words sounds when you use them like that.

[Chris Priestly]

Ok, now well off topic and closed.

As a reminder if you do not like homosexual romances, or straight romances, do not get invlved ina discussion about them.


LOCKDOWN!