FH's Opinion on Homosexuality

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Mar 2009 09:07

chanilover wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:Judging by the confrontation between Moneo and Duncan I'd say he considered it a phase people go through when they're young. Some people experiment and like it and stay with it, some are disgusted by it. But he seemed to indicate that trying to eliminate it would be dangerous.
His writings on homosexuality were coloured by his failure to come to terms with his son's gayness.

I've never really looked at it that way, but it makes sense. Next time I read GEoD I will have to keep that in mind.

NotAbout · Post by **NotAbout** » 19 Mar 2009 09:13

Redstar wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:Judging by the confrontation between Moneo and Duncan I'd say he considered it a phase people go through when they're young. Some people experiment and like it and stay with it, some are disgusted by it. But he seemed to indicate that trying to eliminate it would be dangerous.
That's what I got from that scene. I've held a similar view and it's a theme I've experimented with in a few of my stories. (Similar to Fishspeakers in at least one)

I don't remember the details of the scene (so please forgive my stupidity), but aren't the fishspeakers being painted as not fitting in with Duncan's "traditional" values in more ways than one? I always felt that Frank was perhaps suggesting at how society's views might change over time on particular subjects and that it may not always be a good thing. Duncan felt that the good values of the Atreides were gone.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Mar 2009 09:30

NotAbout wrote:
Redstar wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:Judging by the confrontation between Moneo and Duncan I'd say he considered it a phase people go through when they're young. Some people experiment and like it and stay with it, some are disgusted by it. But he seemed to indicate that trying to eliminate it would be dangerous.
That's what I got from that scene. I've held a similar view and it's a theme I've experimented with in a few of my stories. (Similar to Fishspeakers in at least one)
I don't remember the details of the scene (so please forgive my stupidity), but aren't the fishspeakers being painted as not fitting in with Duncan's "traditional" values in more ways than one? I always felt that Frank was perhaps suggesting at how society's views might change over time on particular subjects and that it may not always be a good thing. Duncan felt that the good values of the Atreides were gone.

There are many levels to FH's writing, this is one of them too.

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 06:20

What about the asexuals? They're not straight, unless straight just means "not attracted to the same sex".

And don't say they don't exist, they totally do.

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 06:24

Schu wrote:What about the asexuals? They're not straight, unless straight just means "not attracted to the same sex".

And don't say they don't exist, they totally do.

I was thinking about bringing that up, but I decided against it. The very nature of being "asexual" means you lack sexuality whatsoever. You don't get aroused by other people, regardless of gender, and you don't masturbate. (So no selfcest, sorry)

It just doesn't seem to be an actual sexual "orientation", but a lack of one. My sister is/was asexual, but she's married now so I'm pretty sure that's changed.

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 06:29

Redstar wrote:
Schu wrote:What about the asexuals? They're not straight, unless straight just means "not attracted to the same sex".

And don't say they don't exist, they totally do.
I was thinking about bringing that up, but I decided against it. The very nature of being "asexual" means you lack sexuality whatsoever. You don't get aroused by other people, regardless of gender, and you don't masturbate. (So no selfcest, sorry)

It just doesn't seem to be an actual sexual "orientation", but a lack of one. My sister is/was asexual, but she's married now so I'm pretty sure that's changed.

Well yes, but my point is not to say that asexuality is a sexuality (that's like saying atheism is a religion... ugh), but to say that you can't say that if you aren't attracted to the same sex you must be straight. Because that's almost like saying that if you don't believe in the abrahamic god, you must believe in one of the other gods.

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 06:35

Schu wrote:
Redstar wrote:
Schu wrote:What about the asexuals? They're not straight, unless straight just means "not attracted to the same sex".

And don't say they don't exist, they totally do.
I was thinking about bringing that up, but I decided against it. The very nature of being "asexual" means you lack sexuality whatsoever. You don't get aroused by other people, regardless of gender, and you don't masturbate. (So no selfcest, sorry)

It just doesn't seem to be an actual sexual "orientation", but a lack of one. My sister is/was asexual, but she's married now so I'm pretty sure that's changed.
Well yes, but my point is not to say that asexuality is a sexuality (that's like saying atheism is a religion... ugh), but to say that you can't say that if you aren't attracted to the same sex you must be straight. Because that's almost like saying that if you don't believe in the abrahamic god, you must believe in one of the other gods.

There's a lot of variables here. If you aren't attracted to the same sex, you must be "straight"... Well, if you're not straight you could easily be bisexual (though in that case why wouldn't you be attracted to the same sex?), you could be attracted to some intersexual variation (what's the label on that?), or you can be asexual.

Now that I'm thinking about it, can you be straight/gay/bisexual/etc. if you're asexual? The whole point about being asexual is you aren't interested in sexuality, though are you only "not interested" in people of the opposite or same sex? If you happen to fall in love with (sex doesn't always go with love) someone of the opposite sex, would that make you straight even if you aren't sexually aroused by them?

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 06:52

Redstar wrote:There's a lot of variables here. If you aren't attracted to the same sex, you must be "straight"... Well, if you're not straight you could easily be bisexual (though in that case why wouldn't you be attracted to the same sex?), you could be attracted to some intersexual variation (what's the label on that?), or you can be asexual.

Now that I'm thinking about it, can you be straight/gay/bisexual/etc. if you're asexual? The whole point about being asexual is you aren't interested in sexuality, though are you only "not interested" in people of the opposite or same sex? If you happen to fall in love with (sex doesn't always go with love) someone of the opposite sex, would that make you straight even if you aren't sexually aroused by them?

*runs away screaming* All I'm saying is that asexuality is distinct from geterosexuality (and any form of sexuality that involves being interested in anyone or anything for that matter).

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 06:53

geterosexuality! I like that typo!

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 06:54

Schu wrote:
Redstar wrote:There's a lot of variables here. If you aren't attracted to the same sex, you must be "straight"... Well, if you're not straight you could easily be bisexual (though in that case why wouldn't you be attracted to the same sex?), you could be attracted to some intersexual variation (what's the label on that?), or you can be asexual.

Now that I'm thinking about it, can you be straight/gay/bisexual/etc. if you're asexual? The whole point about being asexual is you aren't interested in sexuality, though are you only "not interested" in people of the opposite or same sex? If you happen to fall in love with (sex doesn't always go with love) someone of the opposite sex, would that make you straight even if you aren't sexually aroused by them?
*runs away screaming* All I'm saying is that asexuality is distinct from geterosexuality (and any form of sexuality that involves being interested in anyone or anything for that matter).

What's to scream about?

I'm not sure if it is entirely distinct, depending on what a person's personal definition of their asexuality is. Someone could be asexual (that is incapable/uninterested in sexuality) yet still harbor romantic feelings for another person, but it of the same or opposite sex. So does that mean you can be straight, gay, or bisexually asexual?

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 07:09

By distinct, I mean "not the same thing". There can possibly be overlap, but the two terms don't mean the same thing.

(but I think love for an asexual could hardly be romantic. I love my friends and family though.)

(Just to add a spanner in the works, a lot of asexuals still masturbate. I guess in your system that would make them a little gay?

)

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 07:19

They had a special on asexuality a few months back (I believe it may have been True Life) and there was an online discussion board where asexuals could meet and talk for support, and two of them ended up dating and decided to have sex. They didn't like it, but they stayed together because they still like each other. I'm sure they have romantic feelings for each other (love?) but without the sex.

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 07:27

best friends often live together until they marry/get serious enough with someone romantically.

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 07:32

Schu wrote:best friends often live together until they marry/get serious enough with someone romantically.

Well they weren't best friends. They were a couple.

EDIT:
Did a little research and I found that most asexuals do NOT masturbate, and those that do describe arousal without any sexual interest in any sex. It's just a bodily function to be satisfied and porn cannot be used as an aid because they can't connect with it. So masturbation is in this case not sexual.

Also, here are some terms I found relating to the "asexual love" stream of con. I was doing earlier.

* Heteroromantic - romantic attraction towards the opposite sex
* Biromantic - romantic attraction towards both sexes
* Homoromantic - same-sex romantic attraction
* Aromantic - lack of romantic attraction to anyone (purely asexual)

Apparently, since they came up with these terms it's a bit obvious that you can have romantic feelings (love) for someone without a sexual side.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 21 Mar 2009 10:05

So ... if an aromantic were caught masturbating in an improper place it would be in fragrante?

(Great. More silly coinages.

)

Schu · Post by **Schu** » 21 Mar 2009 14:59

Redstar wrote:
Schu wrote:best friends often live together until they marry/get serious enough with someone romantically.
Well they weren't best friends. They were a couple.

EDIT:
Did a little research and I found that most asexuals do NOT masturbate, and those that do describe arousal without any sexual interest in any sex. It's just a bodily function to be satisfied and porn cannot be used as an aid because they can't connect with it. So masturbation is in this case not sexual.

Also, here are some terms I found relating to the "asexual love" stream of con. I was doing earlier.

* Heteroromantic - romantic attraction towards the opposite sex
* Biromantic - romantic attraction towards both sexes
* Homoromantic - same-sex romantic attraction
* Aromantic - lack of romantic attraction to anyone (purely asexual)

Apparently, since they came up with these terms it's a bit obvious that you can have romantic feelings (love) for someone without a sexual side.

Oops, blame wiki, I saw a piece of information and it had a citation, but the citation disagreed with what wiki said... weird. Well, it is wiki after all I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of asexual people that are part of "couples" don't have any romantic love, it's just more of a friends thing, but have grown up with the expectation that most people fall in love and get married etc., so probably feel some kind of pressure to feel these feelings. But I can't back that up in any way whatsoever, just a hypothetical.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 21 Mar 2009 15:12

Will you all just hurry up and fuck? Christ this posting masturbation-athon is reaching new heights of wankery.

Rob

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 19:41

Schu wrote:Oops, blame wiki, I saw a piece of information and it had a citation, but the citation disagreed with what wiki said... weird. Well, it is wiki after all I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of asexual people that are part of "couples" don't have any romantic love, it's just more of a friends thing, but have grown up with the expectation that most people fall in love and get married etc., so probably feel some kind of pressure to feel these feelings. But I can't back that up in any way whatsoever, just a hypothetical.

I don't agree with that. I can understand someone would lack any sexual desire (asexual) but has there ever been an indication that someone is incapable of love? It just seems so utterly far fetched.

It makes sense that anyone would have sexual relations due to societal or romantic pressure, but if they simply were incapable of love why would they get involved? There are plenty of examples of single people or spinsters who never get married but would like to, and plenty of people who are married that wish they weren't. In both cases they have easy access to sex if they just look around for it, so it doesn't seem at all that romantic feelings (love) and sex go hand-in-hand. Nor does society place undue pressure to be in a relationship.

Yes, our past has traditionally treated those that went unmarried less than those that did. But this consensus has changed, and even when it was the norm there was a vast majority of people that did not submit to marriage. It just doesn't seem like there's any societal pressure to be in a relationship strong enough, while there is definitely societal pressure for sex. I seriously doubt an asexual person would seek out a relationship just to prove their sexuality when it's not something they have any interest in. It's a matter of what's important to that individual, and if they do happen to be in a relationship of their free choice then of course they'd also be in a situation more likely to put them under sexual pressure.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 21 Mar 2009 21:00

Actually, Robbo, I think it's ... foreplay.

Not even the greatest ocean in the world could separate them...

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 21 Mar 2009 21:36

"Discussing politics makes me soooo horny. Check out my webcam pics and presidentialsluts.com!"

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 21:40

GamePlayer wrote:"Discussing politics makes me soooo horny. Check out my webcam pics and presidentialsluts.com!"

It doesn't exist.

(Rule 34?)

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 21 Mar 2009 21:45

Hi, I'm Private Church from the popular web series Red vs. Blue!

This video should be required viewing in our education system

Redstar · Post by **Redstar** » 21 Mar 2009 21:52

Are these sluts wearing MJOLNIR?

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 21 Mar 2009 21:59

If only

orald · Post by **orald** » 22 Mar 2009 09:13

Well, this is a silly thread if I've ever seen one. And I haven't missed your poor attempts at mocking me, CL.

Look, IDK about this altruism bullshit, all I know is that I get turned on from cocks, I want to do certain things to them(do guess), and that sometimes the other parts of the body that poseses them also interest me.

What I also know is that I'd fuck pretty much anything with two x chromosoms between adolecense and menopause*.

So I don't think "letting other males steal my women 'cause i'm such a nice sucker**" even begins to work with me.

*Hyp not included.

**Sucker in the non-sexual meaning. Though I do excel in the sexual meaning as well, as I do with anything I ever do.