1942 réponses à ce sujet

[Zobert]

And as I said, you are welcome to your opinion but what I'm looking for is an explanation as to how you arrived there. If biology drives us towards a variety of partners (no matter how big or small that variety is), how is it immoral?

 

Biology also drives racial and sexual profiling even as infants.  Should be encourage that?  Biology encourages violence when disappointed.  We don't encourage that.

 

Just because sex is fun doesn't mean it is without dangers or repercussions of physical and emotional extent.  I have sex.  I've had lots of sex.  I don't have sex blindly or without understanding of what it can bring to my life, least of which is unwanted pregnancy and worst of which is death.

 

It's no different than taking drugs or other pleasurable things.  I don't think these things should be illegal but part of the job is understanding and not ignoring risks so that we don't upset the emotional applecart of those who seek to enjoy these activities.

 

I don't believe drugs should be illegal.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to use your body the way you want to use it IF you don't hurt others, but I understand that sustained drug use can be harmful.

 

Its about being an honest agent.

[eyezonlyii]

Question for the OP since they said that it could be covered by a wide vary of personalities for a demisexual character did you have any kind of character type in mind when you made the thread? Like anything extra you would like to this requested potential character or would anything with you be fine so long as they were demi?

Same thing I was thinking. I there are some personalities I just can't picture as demi.

[ThreeF]

 

 

If you can't be sure of ONE person, how could you possibly be sure of 10-20-30?

You can't. You say that 10 partners can lead to health issues, but so can 1 partner, the only difference is the risk probability,  but there is still a risk. Your argument is basically that sex is risky (and it is).

[WildOrchid]

And where did you learn that technique?

"Trolling for dummies?"

I'm not taking the bait, I have better things to do.

OP, I apologise for your thread being hijacked into idiocy.

The delusion is strong in this one...

[Handsome Jack]

*that's my job*

 

And where did you learn that technique?

 

"Trolling for dummies?"

 

I'm not taking the bait, I have better things to do.

 

OP, I apologise for your thread being hijacked into idiocy.

 

 

A logical assumption, scientific guess if you will, but definitely not trolling. The internet's #1 rule isn't "Most girls are guys pretending to be girls" for nothing, y'know.

 

The thread's fallen to idiocy but it's not anyone's own fault. Debates get out of hand, these things happen. But that's about all I can take for the night. Fun chatting with (most of) you all!

[Zobert]

You can't. You say that 10 partners can lead to health issues, but so can 1 partner, the only difference is the risk probability,  but there is still a risk. Your argument is basically that sex is risky (and it is).

 

My argument is that your chances of risk increase as you increase risky behavior.  You are somehow trying to make the argument, for why I have zero clue, that it is just as risky to have sex with one partner as 60 and not only is that incredibly irresponsible dialogue but flies in the face of everything every major health organization from the Centers for Disease Control to the World Health Organization has advocated for.

 

Do you also tell people not to vaccinate their children because they can still catch the measles even if they get the vaccine?

 

Promiscuity is risky behavior, therefore not healthy and shouldn't be treated like it's no different a life decision than choosing shoes.

 

I take drugs from time to time, I have no moral issues with drug use, but I would be a crazy lunatic to pretend that my choice to do them is as healthy as not doing them.

[Lady Artifice]

Hanako, I'm sorry for my part in this discussion. I really would like to discuss Kaiden with you, if you wouldn't mind very much. I still don't completely understand what flirting he engages in that prevents him from possibly being Demisexual. 

[DomeWing333]

My argument is that your chances of risk increase as you increase risky behavior.  You are somehow trying to make the argument, for why I have zero clue, that it is just as risky to have sex with one partner as 60 and not only is that incredibly irresponsible dialogue but flies in the face of everything every major health organization from the Centers for Disease Control to the World Health Organization has advocated for.

 

Do you also tell people not to vaccinate their children because they can still catch the measles even if they get the vaccine?

 

Promiscuity is risky behavior, therefore not healthy and shouldn't be treated like it's no different a life decision than choosing shoes.

 

I take drugs from time to time, I have no moral issues with drug use, but I would be a crazy lunatic to pretend that my choice to do them is as healthy as not doing them.

 

What about like, say, driving? That's a pretty risky behavior that can have significant consequences on the lives and well-being of yourself and others. And the risk of injuring yourself or someone else in a car crash only increases the more you drive. But it would be bizarre to say that thus driving is an immoral or unhealthy behavior and should be discouraged, right?

[ThreeF]

Promiscuity is risky behavior, therefore not healthy and shouldn't be treated like it's no different a life decision than choosing shoes.

Sex is risky behavior and shouldn't be treated like it's no different a life decision than choosing shoes.

 

How being always responsible no matter how many partners you have is irresponsible? One should always be responsible,  low risk, high risk doesn't matter. I'm not implying that you should treat having many partners with less seriousness, I'm saying that if you treat one encounter seriously you should treat all encounters seriously.

 

(if you feel that you have to push this further pm)

[o Ventus]

 

Second thing: SJWs only exist because of the conservative bigwigs of the past were narrow minded idiots, so SJWs were created to counter them. During this process, the extreme "left-wing" became as irritating and as close-minded as the extreme "right-wing".

 

Personally, I think InternetAristocrat's explanation is a better fit.

 

 

It's in the context of GamerGate (whatever your opinion on that might be), but it's a good explanation imo. NSFW language.

[Malthier]

 

 

A logical assumption, scientific guess if you will, but definitely not trolling. The internet's #1 rule isn't "Most girls are guys pretending to be girls" for nothing, y'know.

 

The thread's fallen to idiocy but it's not anyone's own fault. Debates get out of hand, these things happen. But that's about all I can take for the night. Fun chatting with (most of) you all!

 

There are a lot of stupid opinions/rumors on the internet. Most of the same people that bandy this sort of thing about also blame fangirls for giving Solas undue popularity. I already saw you equate a form of asexuality with promiscuity, tho, so I won't waste time being shocked by how many of them you buy into. 

[Zobert]

What about like, say, driving? That's a pretty risky behavior that can have significant consequences on the lives and well-being of yourself and others. And the risk of injuring yourself or someone else in a car crash only increases the more you drive. But it would be bizarre to say that thus driving is an immoral or unhealthy behavior and should be discouraged, right?

 

You're sorta making my point for me so, sure, let's compare the two! 

 

https://www.census.gov/.../12s1103.pdf

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/

 

Crazy huh?  More people get sick than get in accidents.  Anyway, onto your car accident analogy...

 

I agree though, driving is inherently dangerous.  However, to mitigate that danger we force people to take classes, pass tests, pay money for a license, register their vehicle, and punish them when they drive with increased risk.  Why?  Because we believe it is dangerous.  We force people to wear seatbelts, take away their ability to drive when they do stupid things, fine them if they engage in risky behavior...

 

Do we want people at the end of sex ed to get a license for sex, and pay fines or go to jail if they get an STD? 

 

Society arbitrarily picks and chooses it's affront to behavior and the social or punitive measure placed against behavior we deem "risky". 

 

Personally, I don't think we should be in the business of criminalizing vices.  I also think we'd all be better off without vehicles but that's another story, and still not my bag to force people to live as I think they should live.

 

There are people who say it is immoral to speed because they could kill people.  There are people who say it is immoral to own a gun because the gun could kill people.  There are people who say that it is immoral to engage in promiscuous sex because you could unknowingly spread disease.

 

And then there are people who would not only say it's immoral but try to prevent you from making choices for yourself or kidnap you and drag you to jail for making a choice they wouldn't make--even if you never harmed anyone.

 

Promiscuous sex is like reckless driving.  Do you think that's immoral?

 

I think they're both dangerous behaviors, but I don't think they're necessarily immoral because you actively choose your own risk.  Promoting them or rationalizing, knowing that some people die from both, now that's immoral.

[Zobert]

Sex is risky behavior and shouldn't be treated like it's no different a life decision than choosing shoes.

 

How being always responsible no matter how many partners you have is irresponsible? One should always be responsible,  low risk, high risk doesn't matter. I'm not implying that you should treat having many partners with less seriousness, I'm saying that if you treat one encounter seriously you should treat all encounters seriously.

 

(if you feel that you have to push this further pm)

 

We should treat all encounters with respect to our life and our partner's life, but we don't.  And the facts are that the more you engage in risky behavior, the greater the chance of disease. 

 

If you have a problem with that statement I suggest you take it up with the Centers for Disease Control, not me.  I just read and distribute what they give me.

[Zobert]

Okay, we've ruined her thread enough.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/default.htm

 

That should speak for me.  It's where we get our promotional materials, our statements, etc anyway.

 

Demisexuality...I'm sure it's a safe orientation. 

[DomeWing333]

You're sorta making my point for me so, sure, let's compare the two! 

 

https://www.census.gov/.../12s1103.pdf

 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/

 

Crazy huh?  More people get sick than get in accidents. 

The pdf from your first link isn't working for me. Regardless, more people do die from car accidents than STDs, I'm fairly sure (at least in the US).

 

We force people to wear seatbelts, take away their ability to drive when they do stupid things, fine them if they engage in risky behavior...Do we want people at the end of sex ed to get a license for sex, and pay fines or go to jail if they get an STD? 

No, of course I don't want people to go to jail for getting STDs. Just like I wouldn't want people going to jail for getting drunk. It's only when people voluntarily drive drunk or voluntarily have unprotected sex while carrying an STD that I think is immoral and warrants punishment. And as far as I'm aware, you can be punished for knowingly spreading STDs. The license thing is...quite difficult to implement from a practical level.

 

Promiscuous sex is like reckless driving.  Do you think that's immoral?

 

I think they're both dangerous behaviors, but I don't think they're necessarily immoral because you actively choose your own risk.  Promoting them or rationalizing, knowing that some people die from both, now that's immoral.

No, my point was that sex is like driving, in that both increases your risk of harm the more you practice them. But what we as a society do is punish and moralize people who recklessly drive and recklessly have sex, not the people who simply do so often.

 

EDIT: Oh and uh...something something demisexuality.

[AWTEW]

Personally, I think InternetAristocrat's explanation is a better fit.

 

 

It's in the context of GamerGate (whatever your opinion on that might be), but it's a good explanation imo. NSFW language.

 

Okay, I both agree and disagree with this video. It is far to broad in its use of the term millennials, and it does not factor in cultural, regional, and economic  factors.  He is also using the same techniques he is ranting at the SJW for :/

[9TailsFox]

Okay, I both agree and disagree with this video. It is far to broad in its use of the term millennials, and it does not factor in cultural, regional, and economic  factors.  He is also using the same techniques he is ranting at the SJW for :/

The think is what we talk loudest on internet is bs. If your biggest problem is you don't like design of video game character like Bayonetta, trust me your life perfect.

[Seraphim24]

 

1. You are not interested in sex.

 

 

2. The way you think about attractiveness seems to be different from how other people think about it.  

 

3. The way you think about sex seems to be different too.  

 

 

4. You like the idea of sex or want to have it, but can’t think of anyone you’d do it with.  

 

 

5. You view sex as an obligation, or have other reasons for doing it.  

 

 

 

6. Flirting doesn’t make sense to you.  

 

 

 

7. You’re nervous about dating and would prefer to date your friends.  

 

 

8. When you do feel sexual attraction, it’s confusing and/or exclusive.  

 

 

To Bioware and whoever else is reading this, I appreciate the time you took to do so. Please feel free to add any input you wish. Thank you. 

 

 

Welp poor Hanako this thread was sort of eviscerated.. I'm going to go back to step 1 though in my ongoing quest to understand this.

 

1. Not interested in sex

 

I think this happens to a lot of people, at various frequencies.... at various times... for various reasons.

 

2. Attractiveness being different..

 

Ok, so I'd bet most people that have a picture of a half naked chick on the wall or something aren't even really in a different category. If you asked them what they really like it might be the same thing, just because people act a certain way doesn't mean it is that way.

 

Again, I think this happens to a lot of people, I wouldn't say most people are aware of it, but many aren't really

 

3. Pleasure through other means

 

I'd guess this is somewhat common also... pleasure through other means, oral sex, masturbation, particular fantasies etc... not necessarily missionary sexual encounters with other individuals.

 

4. You like the idea of sex but can't decide who to have it with..

 

I'd imagine if you treated sex as literally the ultimate spiritual connection with this other being that will last forever in eternity, that would naturally make that person quite hard to find.

 

5. You view sex as an obligation or have other reasons for doing it

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard this applies to like 90% of married couples at one point or another.

 

6. Flirting doesn't make sense to you

 

It doesn't make sense to me either, or a lot of other people who I think are pretty sensible.. so.. I don't know.. I can't really confess that would mean direct and obvious connections. I think "flirtation" is really an invention by some very irregular personalities that was made a requirement for the other 95% of the population by various media and norms and which those remaining 95% have no real interesting in doing and which serves no legitimate purpose.

 

Actually, flirting is kind of like this super-short kind of Hollywood fantasy silliness method of human interaction which prioritizes speed and is probably better abandoned entirely.

 

7. Nervous about dating and would prefer to date friends

 

I'd have to say once again this seems to apply to a lot of people, IMO. It's crazy to me that people that feel this way would feel marginalized.

 

8. Sexual attraction is confusing and exclusive

 

Also.. pretty common.... I'd guess.

 

I mean the big thing I took from all that was these feelings of confusion relative to some normalized baseline where people are sanely going about their sexual business. That is just anything but the case, IMO, most people have absolutely no idea where they're going sexually, why, when, how, just about anything, and they're grabbing flimsily onto the very meager terms offered to satisfy their abundant sexual carnal chaos like "do you have a girlfriend? Boyfriend." Heterosexuality, homosexuality,, etc. For some people, those terms and identifiers explain their entire sexual history and can summarize them quite accurately, my guess is that it is not even a majority of people though.

 

These people in the club that are supposedly normally approaching sex "normally" are often approaching it with extreme chaos and lack of direction.

 

Most people probably do all sorts of stuff in between, masturbate to porn, masturbate to particular types or fantasies within porn that aren't necessarily person-specific, etc. Besides, maybe those people are also finding an emotional connection, it's just their emotional connection, their emotional connection is to people who don't want long term connections and relationships.

 

I guess really I'm just saying these facts seem sort of common to all kinds of people. All the Bioware characters strike me as.. well.. many video game characters... strike me as "demisexual" to one degree or another. I'm not entirely sure what would make a character as purely distinguishable as "demisexual," apart from possibly exaggerating certain elements that certain characters (make Merrill even more slow moving towards a relationship, or something like that)

[DanteYoda]

I disagree.  Look at all of Stephen Hawking's wives.  They loved him for his mind.

That is still a sexual attraction, just his mind not his body..

[Handsome Jack]

Okay, I both agree and disagree with this video. It is far to broad in its use of the term millennials, and it does not factor in cultural, regional, and economic  factors.  He is also using the same techniques he is ranting at the SJW for :/

 

Now you're talking like a Cultural Marxist, which is worse than an SJW.

[Zobert]

The pdf from your first link isn't working for me. Regardless, more people do die from car accidents than STDs, I'm fairly sure (at least in the US).[/quote]

 

 

More people die from STDs and STD-related illnesses than car accidents because cars have become safer each year.  In the last decade automobile fatalities went down by 25%

 

http://www.autoblog....own-25-percent/

 

32,000 deaths in 2014

 

Compare to:

 

* 65 million of people living in the US with STD
* 15 million of new STD cases each year
* 2/3 of all STD's accrues in people 25 yrs of age or younger
* 1 in 4 new STD's accrues in teenagers
* cervical cancer in women is linked to HPV
* doctors are required to report newly diagnosed cases of gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis B to state health departments and the CDC
* 1 in 4 Americans have genital herpes, 80% of those with herpes are unaware they have it
* at least 1 in 4 Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives
* 15% of all infertile American women are infertile because of tubal damage caused by untreated STD
* 12% of all infertile American men are infertile because of inflammation of the testicles and sterility caused by untreated STD
As early as 1996, WHO estimated that more than 1 million people were being infected daily. About 60% of these infections occur in young people <25 years of age, and of these 30% are <20 years. Between the ages of 14 and 19, STDs occur more frequently in girls than boys by a ratio of nearly 2:1; this equalizes by age 20.

 

Source(s): http://std-gov.org/

 

 

No, of course I don't want people to go to jail for getting STDs. Just like I wouldn't want people going to jail for getting drunk. It's only when people voluntarily drive drunk or voluntarily have unprotected sex while carrying an STD that I think is immoral and warrants punishment. And as far as I'm aware, you can be punished for knowingly spreading STDs. The license thing is...quite difficult to implement from a practical level.

 

We're not just talking about killing people with the driving scenario (not car accidents but driving which is what you said).  Because cars are dangerous you must be licensed to drive and can be penalized for car-related activities that have not YET resulted in an accident.

 

Do you want people fined for the sexual equivalent of speeding?

 

I don't, but you can at least admit that promiscuity is dangerous--for some reason you won't and I really don't understand why not.

 

So why not?

 

It just feels weird that people will openly say that others should not own guns (which can't shoot without a human behind the trigger pulling it) because of accidental shootings, suicides, etc. but if you talk about sex which kills people--not even to say that it should be outlawed people thrown down.

 

It's just irresponsible to not have honest conversation about a health issue.  There is no morality that need be in play to say that the more you have sex, the higher your risk for death.  If there was the CDC and WHO would receive death threats.

 

Having a mature conversation about the risks of promiscuity is impossible because people immediately jump into defensive position as if you're a Mormon arrived to talk about Heavenly Father.  This is exactly why my job is so hard to do.

 

You cannot crate a responsible, sexual society if you stick your head in the sand or perform magic to justify why it's not really unsafe to have sex with multiple partners.  We're so afraid that someone might possibly feel judged that we will inadvertently kill them with our justifications.

 

If you want to have sex with 100 people this year, I'm not going to judge you or tell you not to do it.  What I will do in all good conscience is tell you that before you engage in a high risk activity to understand what's lurking below the surface.  I will tell you that not every HIV test is accurate until it has been in the body for 4 months.  I will tell you that condoms don't prevent herpes and that someone doesn't need to look like they have herpes for you to get it.  I will tell you that condoms break at a 5% rate and that it could be you that it breaks with.  I will tell you that HPV can lead to cervical or ovarian cancer in women.  I will tell you that unknown STDs can also cause infertility and infant death.

 

And then I will IRL hand you a few condoms, give you a hug, and a coupon for a free HIV test and send you on your way.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Question for the OP since they said that it could be covered by a wide vary of personalities for a demisexual character did you have any kind of character type in mind when you made the thread? Like anything extra you would like to this requested potential character or would anything with you be fine so long as they were demi?

Well, to be honest I've always humored the idea of if we ever have a Fex follower that he/she would be demi. It can ever be a part of their race, like how Dwarves can't use magic. There would be something that makes them not able to experience sexuality like the other races and only get those feelings after forming the strong bond, like maybe it has to do with them being really attuned to the soul(since those exist in DA) and the attraction occurs after their soul and the other person's resonates. In this follower's case, the person whose soul they resonate with would be the protagonist. For those interested in seeing demisexuality shown, they will see that represented, and for those who don't or could care less either way they get an interesting and unique follower from an interesting and unique race. There are other ideas too, and really a character from almost any backstory would be fine. 

 

Personality-wise I would prefer they be in the Good or higher part of Neutral on the D&D Spectrum, but that's just because I prefer those alignments. Other than that they could be really anything from rather meek to rather eccentric, from having a shell built around them to being very open, etc. 

 

I also had a few ideas that would shed light of it being more than just "meeting the right one" and show it is demisexuality. For example maybe in party banter with the promiscuous companion the promiscuous one tries to explain to the demisexual one the joys of that lifestyle but the demisexual one doesn't get it. This could lead to both trying to understand the other's viewpoint by asking questions to each other. Also, and I know it may seem sad but it is something demisexuals face, but I would like the demisexual follower to be kind of sad when the protagonist enters a relationship with another LI even if the romance with the demisexual was never started, showing that that bond forms regardless but the demisexual was friendzoned since the protagonist didn't recognize for the demisexual follower it became more than just friendship. I'm not saying like crying or anything, but just something small like wishing the protagonist and the other LI happiness while having their tone have a bit of sorrow under it. 

[o Ventus]

Okay, I both agree and disagree with this video. It is far to broad in its use of the term millennials, and it does not factor in cultural, regional, and economic  factors.  He is also using the same techniques he is ranting at the SJW for :/

How is "millenials" too broad? That's the common name of the generation of people he's referring to. I've also heard them called "Generation Y", but "millenials" is much more common in my experience. And I say this as a millenial, but I really do detest millenials. Outside a handful that I've met and know in real life, I can't say very many of them have merit.

 

The SJW infestation, best I can tell, is an American export. I've never heard of any European or Asian SJWs (I mean full European or Asian, not Euro-American or Asian-American). He describes American events and customs. I think it's pretty clear that he's talking about America.