Page 6 of 12
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 00:14
by Schu
NotAbout wrote:I do understand that the mind can repress and deny things like this. Though denial is one thing and unconsciously repressing an urge is another.
My experience tells me that if anybody were to try gay sex for the reasons you've stated they'd find it wasn't for them or if they did, they would be deluding themselves. I've heard "I'm not gay, I just like having sex with men" too many times (not in so many words, but the implication was there) and to me its too ridiculous a concept to accept. I think that the terms "gay"/"straight"/"bi" have had their meaning loosened a lot, and I don't agree with it. A lot of struggles with sexuality arise from these labels being used too broadly, e.g. "I get erections over naked men and not women, but I don't like fashion, or speak with a lisp, I like playing footy, therefore I'm not gay!". As I've stated earlier, to me, to be "gay" is to be attracted to members of the same sex. Attraction can mean sex, or a whole bunch of other stuff.
As for the poo fetish, you've got me there. In fact internet fetishes in general are bizarre. Too much of a mind fuck to bother trying to understand.
But I'm me, so I've only got my own experiences to go on. Just my two cents on the matter.
Unconsciously repressing an urge is another thing that humans often do. Especially sportsmen, though that may be more sublimation.
Yes, they would be deluding themselves. That's the point. They're not really gay or bi in any way. My point was that people might consider gay sex or the like for many reasons other than attraction.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 00:25
by SandChigger
If you're still this serious when you're my age, someone really
will smack you about the head, you know?
(If I'm still around, I'll do it. And then fall over wheezing....
)
NotAbout wrote:Now thats a toughy, only you can know for sure! I guess it depends on if you're thinking of getting your own erection or thinking about someone else getting one.
Or thinking about getting someone else's?
You left that one out.
Ahem. Just saying.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 00:58
by NotAbout
Yes, they would be deluding themselves. That's the point. They're not really gay or bi in any way. My point was that people might consider gay sex or the like for many reasons other than attraction.
Then really we both agree. My original point being that anybody experimenting without any attraction probably shouldn't be (I guess I wasn't too clear there though). You don't need to try it to find out if you're attracted.
If you're still this serious when you're my age, someone really will smack you about the head, you know? (If I'm still around, I'll do it. And then fall over wheezing.... )
I'm not serious all the time, I don't think you'll need to do that. I'm only serious in this thread since its is of incredible importance and global significance!
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 01:22
by Schu
NotAbout wrote:Yes, they would be deluding themselves. That's the point. They're not really gay or bi in any way. My point was that people might consider gay sex or the like for many reasons other than attraction.
Then really we both agree. My original point being that anybody experimenting without any attraction probably shouldn't be (I guess I wasn't too clear there though). You don't need to try it to find out if you're attracted.
I think that at least some people do need to try it before they know. Self-delusion is a tricky thing to get out of.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 01:40
by Hunchback Jack
[Checks to see if thread is safe to reply in yet. Decides it isn't. Leaves to check the prequel threads for updates ... ]
HBJ
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 02:16
by NotAbout
Schu wrote:
I think that at least some people do need to try it before they know. Self-delusion is a tricky thing to get out of.
Well I feel happy with agreeing to disagree on this.
Sorry for my derailing though.
Its safe to come back now HBJ!
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 05:20
by SandChigger
(The "too serious" comment was really only directed at Schu, btw.
Kind of a continuation of something from a few days back, where I was fantasizing about smacking him about the head. With a nice halibut. Schu! Did I
mention the halibut the other day? Getting so forgetful these days....
)
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 08:42
by Schu
OH! Missed that. Oh well.
Hey, maybe I get off on fish beatings. Did you think about that?
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 11:28
by SandChigger
You hurt yourself giving birth to that one, didn't you?
It's so sad when 27 comes early....
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 11:57
by Tleszer
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 12:04
by Schu
I thought I was a sadistic necrophiliac zoophile, but it turns out I was only flogging a dead horse.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 14:02
by GamePlayer
*groan*
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 16:37
by moreh_yeladim
SandChigger wrote:Seriously? That's the first time you've noticed the homo-erotic subtext in these books? Erasmus analyzing Gilbertus' fine physique in the shower? And taking him out "camping" when he was a boy. To harden him up.
Hearing the teenager breathing hard, though not protesting, Erasmus slowed his mechanical pace.
"Please don't get weird on me again, Mr. Erasmus."
I will kill whoever decided to turn their cheap slashfic into published novels.
I (can still) get an erection thinking about getting an erection! Very Happy
Where does that put me? Shocked
It means you're perfectly qualified to become an actor on "Torchwood".
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 17:04
by SandChigger
I don't know that show, but I guess it's better that than "Deadwood"!
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 17:49
by moreh_yeladim
Oh, and to the guy who said that Baron Harkonnen's sexuality represented FH's opinion thereof... Baron Harkonnen wasn't repugnant merely for homosexuality (though at the time I'm sure it helped) but for paedophilia. Herbert was subtle about it when he wrote "Dune", but if you read the lines (not even between) it becomes apparent that the Baron prefers to rape young boys while they are drugged.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 17:56
by A Thing of Eternity
moreh_yeladim wrote:Oh, and to the guy who said that Baron Harkonnen's sexuality represented FH's opinion thereof... Baron Harkonnen wasn't repugnant merely for homosexuality (though at the time I'm sure it helped) but for paedophilia. Herbert was subtle about it when he wrote "Dune", but if you read the lines (not even between) it becomes apparent that the Baron prefers to rape young boys while they are drugged.
I actually have some doubts that he was meant to be portayed as a pedophile. My last read through of Dune leads me to think these "boys" were actually young men. When the Baron is relating the scene with the poisoned slave boy he mentions that it was a struggle, but he was able to overpower the boy. If the Baron was barely able to win against the boy then there's little chance that this is a child IMO.
Not sure if that has any bearing on what FH was attempting to do, but it seems relevent to this discussion.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 20:21
by NotAbout
SandChigger wrote:I don't know that show, but I guess it's better that than "Deadwood"!
I've been told Deadwood is good, will have to find out for myself one day I guess.
Back to the subject at hand, its been a while since I've read Dune in its entirety and my memories keep getting mixed up with the miniseries (In which I believe the pedophilia was obvious). Having the Baron call young men "boys" doesn't seem too far fetched at all.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 21:17
by Schu
I think too much is being read into the word "struggle". He probably just gets sick pleasure from seeing the boys fight vainly against him.
Honestly it barely even matters whether they're young men or boys, it's still paedophilia, and it is most certainly still rape.
Posted: 17 Mar 2009 21:22
by Freakzilla
I believe the slave "boy" who attempts to kill the Baron was chosen because he looked like Paul, not necessarily because of his age or sex.
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 10:07
by inhuien
Baraka Bryan wrote:...of 14 or 15, which is still pedophilia
Not everywhere,
clicky, but rape is rape regardless.
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 14:09
by moreh_yeladim
It doesn't matter if it's technically pedophilia by the standards of whichever culture you happen to come from. The point was that the Baron enjoyed raping relatively-young boys while they were drugged. There's enough perversion there to characterize the Baron even if you set the age of consent at 13 and say homosexuality's OK.
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 15:01
by A Thing of Eternity
Fair nuff!
Posted: 18 Mar 2009 15:10
by inhuien
moreh_yeladim wrote:There's enough perversion there to characterize the Baron even if you set the age of consent at 13 and say homosexuality's OK.
Homosexuality is OK, okay. Not sure I dig the subtext to your closing phrase there.
Posted: 19 Mar 2009 05:24
by chanilover
inhuien wrote:moreh_yeladim wrote:There's enough perversion there to characterize the Baron even if you set the age of consent at 13 and say homosexuality's OK.
Homosexuality is OK, okay. Not sure I dig the subtext to your closing phrase there.
Nice catch!
All this talk about homo and bisexuality reminds of the old joke where a guy claims he's trisexual because he'll try anything sexual.
Posted: 19 Mar 2009 05:56
by Redstar
Splitting hairs here, but it does seem the Baron was really just an
Ephebophile. I don't think he was ever clearly labeled a pedophile because he lived in a universe where society was so degraded and the royalty so corrupt that it was considered acceptable for the Baron to exercise whatever tastes he wanted. I doubt the word "pedophile" even
exists in anything but dictionaries. Actually using the word would suggest that people have a negative context to use it in, which would go against the whole degradation of society theme. No one saw it as something wrong to label it.
I think what we're supposed to be taking from the Baron's perversion is not his homosexuality/ephebophilia, but the pleasure he takes from raping and that he seeks out those that resemble family members (Paul and possibly Feyd).
