The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[afbarnes]

A little diversion from the current argument.. [feel more then free to continue, i thought that i would like to contribute to this thread]

But I think that homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing. A quote from someone I saw gave an interesting point in regards to this

"Being hetrosexual isn't normal, it's just more common."

This is a statement that I fully believe in, sexuality and gender has the potential to be a very fluid thing in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, there are famous cases of men being heterosexuals their entire lives many with wives and children, but will wake up one day and suddenly no longer feel a sexual attraction to their wives. There is nothing saying that that no longer love them anymore it's just that they do not find them sexually appealing.

Then there is the argument of some individuals claiming that they do not like gay people, but will then happily go ahead and watch Lesbian Porn. This is something that I can not seem to comprehend, im under the reasoning that some spouts of homophobia are that they fear that gay men may treat straight men the same way that they may treat women.

There is also another point that I heard which was that if a straight man tries to get with a lesbian its considered a "challenge" but if a gay man tries to get with a straight man it's considered "predatory" no matter which way you look at it, if you make sexual advances on someone no matter their orientation and they do not like it, apologise and stop. I can't think why it would be a "challenge" to turn a lesbian straight, just don't do it.

Now there is the part on PDA. I understand that there is growing acceptance of gay couples in public. But as a gay man myself I don't think I will ever be able to give any form of affection to my partner, because of the stigma behind gay people and displaying themselves in public. It pains me to see straight couples walking happily holding hands, maybe a little kiss while sitting on a bench, knowing that I will more then likely not be able to do this.

I just feel that it shouldn't matter who i'm attracted to, as it should have very little impact on an individuals life that would witness it.

(it's very late and i'm kinda forgetting where i'm going with some points so im just gonna stop now haha)

 

[G.T.Ace]

That was a great post and it's cool that you're open about your orientation!

 

[Danoff]

Now there is the part on PDA. I understand that there is growing acceptance of gay couples in public. But as a gay man myself I don't think I will ever be able to give any form of affection to my partner, because of the stigma behind gay people and displaying themselves in public. It pains me to see straight couples walking happily holding hands, maybe a little kiss while sitting on a bench, knowing that I will more then likely not be able to do this.

To be honest, I don't really like it when heterosexual people do this either.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well.... open, and not open.

@afbarnes Until you are actually obstructed by others, it's down to how you handle the exposure. People attract negative attention in public for all sorts of reasons, and some have no way of escaping the scrutiny. Others struggle with controllable visuals for different but equivalent reasons. I remember tears welling up while watching a guy accept an Academy award a few years ago. The guy had a fairly pronounced stutter, but instead of shying away from speaking, he just did it. He stuttered like a mutha', but it was beautiful. I thought it was so courageous. The world was watching, but he focused entirely on what he wanted to do, and not on what they might say.

Others are not responsible for what you think they'll think, or do. If you haven't got it in you, so be it. I'm pathetic in the face of that type of possible scrutiny, so I'm in the haven't got it in me group. It's also possible to find "your way" though. A random lesbian might generally feel awkward about her orientation unless given the chance to actually engage people head on. It's possible that for her it's that much more comfortable to enter a little pub and shout "Dyke on deck!!", than to shyly creep in and cautiously show affection to a partner. I'm a bit like that, I need to know that people know that I know I've got a massive pimple on my face, or whatever it might be.

The degree of difficulty in navigating these situations is perhaps determined by abnormality multiplied by coping level. Stemming from an ever present chance of being randomly attacked in my home as kid, I have an instinct to watch like like a hawk, and remain unseen. Coupling that with being somewhat alternative looking, public appearances were always a challenge for me. I looked different, and watched people watching me. My issue though, and because I recognise that, I can gain progress, and have.

To be honest, I don't really like it when heterosexual people do this either.

Me too. Kinda hard to stop watching the pigeons go at it though, I find.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I've given up on this forum. I did notice a pattern when I first signed up here, and I tried avoiding serious discussions but oh well. Homophobephobia is not uncommon in today's world, I should've expected it.

Like most self-proclaimed open minded people, some of you are indeed very close minded and as prejudice as your average KKK member. "Hi, I'm open minded, and **** you for hinting you have a different opinion".

The problem is that you keep contradicting yourself. It doesn't really matter what the big bold post (that I quoted) says, because you say something different practically every other post.

No, I answer questions with the fewest words possible. You just fill in the blank with something that contradicts it, or something out of context from other posts.

If you guys keep doing that btw, common courtesy will be no more.

I'm from the planet where "average" (in this usage, the "mean") is the sum of all numbers added together and divided by the amount of numbers in the set.
Nine is an average. It is not a lower bound. If you're waiting until she is eight, there is roughly a one in six chance she's menstruated before you've warned her about it.

Do you enjoy nitpicking, or are you trying to mess with me? Just wondering.

**** six, having it at the age of 8 is an anomaly. When I said the average is 9 here, I had ignored what my female friends told me about themselves and went with what my sister told me years ago from her observation. Basing it on my own, and judging it strictly by the dozens of women I've talked to, the lowest number I got was 10. Actually, yesterday I asked a 3# year old American chick(lives there, never moved, so it's not just Middle eastern girls) that said she got it at 12 and never heard of anybody getting it before 10. 8 being too late? **** that, it's too early.
I've developed a theory (or hypothesis, if you'll nitpick that and dodge the argument as usual) regarding how/when you hit puberty. Given how you guys do things here though, I'd rather not share it.
Just answer this, preferably with a source: What's the percentage of females that hit puberty before the age of 8?

That's not a reason - it doesn't even make sense as a concept, much less as reasoning.

It's enough for me not to take the risk.


Oh wait now you're going to say it's not a "risk". Forget it..

the second is if you believe that information will do them harm.

You could've stopped there instated of insinuating I'm a child molester. Friendly is your middle name, huh?

(other than us - parents are by far the largest proportion of abusers and killers of their children).

Who's "us"?

Did you end up answering this question? It is exactly the same question as came to mind when I read your post. To quote myself:
Along the way I think there's been some (conscious, sub-conscious, unconscious?) ambiguity on whether we're talking about sex, or sexuality (read - sexual orientation). Please note (as @FoolKiller pointed out) that a gender is a sex, but not of the verb variety, just as sexual orientation is not. If you're against kids seeing anything that might make them aware that homosexuality exists, then say that!! People are pretty cluey around here and will see through your charade anyway. Your big clarification (in bold, no less) clearly states that "this has nothing to do with homosexuality". So take it somewhere else. Start a new thread. But don't come in here and feign generalities in an attempt to gain acceptance of your views under false pretenses.

I meant to reply to @Exorcet 's post but I had decided to watch F1's qualifying and sleep.


The reason I said this is here is because I was asked to by @TenEightyOne . He wanted me to explain why I voted "It's okay as long as they don't talk about it". My answer was that nobody should talk about sexuality in public or on kids shows, regardless of orientation. You guys are too close minded to read, understand or accept that and immediately wanted to assume I'm a homophobe. Homophobephobia indeed. You prolonged this, not me.

No, that explains what you want, but not any of the reasoning behind it. It's so vague as to be nearly useless, and says nothing about what you're actually trying to protect your children from.



I'm still not really seeing the reasoning. In neither of those do you really explain why you think this is a good thing to do, and exactly what negative effects you're trying to avoid.

I'll say it again, this stuff is not obvious to someone like me who does not think that teaching children about sex is a bad thing.

I'm not sure I understand "mi gusta" either, but I looked up this:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/me-gusta

And it seems to fit. I don't think it's necessarily true, I think it's largely a by-product of children being starved of information about sex. Hungry people get that same face when you put them in front of a table full of food.

You'll excuse me if I pick a single sentence out of the middle, but the reasoning seems to be "children taught about sex lose their innocence, and that's bad". Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, and please feel free to expand on it more if you can.

For starters, it raises more of my lists of questions:
Why is innocence so preferable for a child?
What is "innocence" exactly, and why does learning about sex remove it?
What is it about a childhood lived with the knowledge of sex that is worse for the child than a childhood lived in innocence?


But I think @Famine is doing a much better job than me of disabusing you of the quote unquote "reasoning" behind your chosen parenting method, and of outlining the potential damage it could do to your child.

You'll get similar answers if you ask international rights organizations why child labour is bad.

If? I don't know of anyone that had their Dad help show them how it worked. Well, no one who is stable.

Grow an e-pair and say it. Don't worry, I'm not the type that likes reporting posts. Don't worry about the administrator here either, looks like he'd agree with you.

To be honest, I don't really like it when heterosexual people do this either.

Heterophobe!!

 

[Imari]

Like most self-proclaimed open minded people, some of you are indeed very close minded and as prejudice as your average KKK member. "Hi, I'm open minded, and **** you for hinting you have a different opinion".

Not really. Homophobes who try to justify their homophobia with awful reasoning get pilloried. Homophobes who are homophobic for good reasons are fine.

It's enough for me not to take the risk.

I'm not seeing your risk, other than having a potentially uncomfortable conversation with a child. You're an adult. Grow up.

My answer was that nobody should talk about sexuality in public or on kids shows, regardless of orientation. You guys are too close minded to read, understand or accept that and immediately wanted to assume I'm a homophobe. Homophobephobia indeed. You prolonged this, not me.

You started this in a thread about homosexuality. Don't forget that. It's a completely different thing to be claiming that all sexuality should be kept out of the public eye, to be claiming that just homosexual sexuality should be kept out of the public eye.

Your initial comments were not clear that you were referring to all sexuality, and so you got jumped on.

You'll get similar answers if you ask international rights organizations why child labour is bad.

No, I won't.

I'll get reasoned arguments as to how forcing children into labour early in life stunts their education and development, so that they cannot reach the same levels of skill or performance that they would as adults. I'll probably get evidence that children who are used as labour are regularly taken advantage of in ways that wouldn't be possible with adults.

Don't try and draw parallels between your own hand-waving and child labour. They don't exist.

Any time you'd like to produce some reasoning for how exposing children to sexuality early damages them in any way, or how losing their "innocence" results in any overall negative effect, I'd love to hear it.

At the moment, you're spending a lot of time dancing around the issue and trying not to provide reasoning for your argument. The null hypothesis for that is that there isn't any.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not really. Homophobes who try to justify their homophobia with awful reasoning get pilloried. Homophobes who are homophobic for good reasons are fine.

Still implying I'm a homophobe. Unbelievable.

I'm not seeing your risk, other than having a potentially uncomfortable conversation with a child. You're an adult. Grow up.

I said that wasn't the case. I said I'd have the talk. I've said enough.

You started this in a thread about homosexuality. Don't forget that. It's a completely different thing to be claiming that all sexuality should be kept out of the public eye, to be claiming that just homosexual sexuality should be kept out of the public eye.

I didn't start anything. I made a joke about being a minority after finding out only 4.4% of people agree with me. How about adding an option in the poll? "OK as long as everyone keeps their sexuality out of public eye and kids' TV".

Your initial comments were not clear that you were referring to all sexuality, and so you got jumped on.

I explained within 2 posts. You refused to believe it. It hurts you to see a different opinion about the subject without calling it a homophobe.

No, I won't.

I'll get reasoned arguments as to how forcing children into labour early in life stunts their education and development, so that they cannot reach the same levels of skill or performance that they would as adults. I'll probably get evidence that children who are used as labour are regularly taken advantage of in ways that wouldn't be possible with adults.

Don't try and draw parallels between your own hand-waving and child labour. They don't exist.

Any time you'd like to produce some reasoning for how exposing children to sexuality early damages them in any way, or how losing their "innocence" results in any overall negative effect, I'd love to hear it.

At the moment, you're spending a lot of time dancing around the issue and trying not to provide reasoning for your argument. The null hypothesis for that is that there isn't any.

The term “child labour” is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm

Ask them what their definition of "childhood" is and get back to me.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well you kind of called yourself a homophobe.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Well you kind of called yourself a homophobe.

I did? Must've sleep-typed. Quote me.

 

[LeMansAid]

Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homophobe.

Anyway....

There has been a potential hypocrisy in here in recent times. I think that some who were telling you that you should be able to see the logic in what is extremely likely evidence of a relationship, without sex being a factor, were maybe some of the same people that had not a hint, not a clue, not any kind of inkling at all that Conchita Wurst might be gay, or at least of a sexual orientation outside of the most common. That, to me comes across a bit as having it both ways (pardon the pun). What does gay look like? Well it doesn't look like anything really, but we do have experiences that draw on, just as we do with finding that in all logic, two particular people are likely a couple.

Still, I'm not going to be going to Conchita with "Soooooo, you're gay....".

The main conversation is still hung up on whether or not sexual orientation can be evident without sex being evident. Are you still at no on this? If so, I think that's silly enough to just leave the whole thing alone.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homophobe.

It does. It's like when a white guy says something negative about another guy that happens to be black, and the black guy goes straight to "it's because I'm black right?". Racismphobia.


It's like when American soldiers here in Bahrain gave me dirty looks a few months back because I'd grown a beard. Terroristphobia. Didn't need a real terrorist for that to work, did you?

The main conversation is still hung up on whether or not sexual orientation can be evident without sex being evident. Are you still at no on this? If so, I think that's silly enough to just leave the whole thing alone.

I was never on this.


edit

Just in case someone gets overly sensitive about the black guy bit.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's very important. Evidence of sexual orientation is pretty much impossible to hide kids from, whereas sex as an action is much more hide-able. Do you believe that people should attempt to hide evidence of sexual orientation from kids?

 

[Scaff]

It does. It's like when a white guy says something negative about another guy that happens to be black, and the black guy goes straight to "it's because I'm black right?". Racismphobia.


It's like when American soldiers here in Bahrain gave me dirty looks a few months back because I'd grown a beard. Terroristphobia. Didn't need a real terrorist for that to work, did you?

Seriously you need to actually stop and think before typing!

Two tries and you still manage to get it ass about face.

Your example here is not a parallel to "Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homophobe." its a parallel to "Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homosexual." Which is also nonsense, as all you are doing here is blaming victims.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Seriously you need to actually stop and think before typing!

Two tries and you still manage to get it ass about face.

Your example here is not a parallel to "Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homophobe." its a parallel to "Homophobephobia doesn't really work without a homosexual." Which is also nonsense, as all you are doing here is blaming victims.

...blaming the victims. Funny.

If a homosexual thinks all heterosexual people are homophobes, they are no better than homophobes. If a black guy thinks all non-black people are racists, he's no better than racist people. If an American thinks all Arabs are terrorists, he's no better than the real terrorists. If you disagree with that, you have problems.

It's very important. Evidence of sexual orientation is pretty much impossible to hide kids from, whereas sex as an action is much more hide-able. Do you believe that people should attempt to hide evidence of sexual orientation from kids?

Yes and I do think it's possible, and easy.

 

[Azuremen]

If a homosexual thinks all heterosexual people are homophobes, they are no better than homophobes. If a black guy thinks all non-black people are racists, he's no better than racist people. If an American thinks all Arabs are terrorists, he's no better than the real terrorists. If you disagree with that, you have problems.

You're comparing irrational hatred to paranoia, which are not the same. So yeah, I'll have a problem and disagree.

Yes and I do think it's possible, and easy.

So you want everyone, everywhere, to never mention their significant other, spouse, etc. because children might be corrupted by it? Insane.

Not that shocking given your radical notions on how society should operate.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You're comparing irrational hatred to paranoia, which are not the same. So yeah, I'll have a problem and disagree.

"phobia" is fear and not an irrational hate. It's a lot closer to paranoia than that.

So you want everyone, everywhere, to never mention their significant other, spouse, etc. because children might be corrupted by it? Insane.

Not that extreme. It might be hard for you to imagine, but it's how people operate here and nobody's complaining.

Not that shocking given your radical notions on how society should operate.

I don't get it. Why does everybody like misquoting me? I don't think my utopia is how people should operate. I think it's how humans think it should operate, if they weren't hypocrites or in denial about being no better than animals.

 

[Azuremen]

"phobia" is fear and not an irrational hate. It's a lot closer to paranoia than that.

You're examples were racism and, well, racism. Which are not phobias, but rather blind dislike and general hatred towards a group that is different. You can label it under xenophobia if you want, but the nature of the two is still different.

It is quite like saying apples and oranges are the same because they are fruit.

Not that extreme. It might be hard for you to imagine, but it's how people operate here and nobody's complaining.

Which I think you said is Bahrain, which much of the world considers dismal for civil rights. Sounds like it is working great.

I don't get it. Why does everybody like misquoting me? I don't think my utopia is how people should operate. I think it's how humans think it should operate, if they weren't hypocrites or in denial about being no better than animals.

We aren't misquoting you, it is just when distilled down, your utopia is really that poorly constructed.

 

[Famine]

No, I answer questions with the fewest words possible. You just fill in the blank with something that contradicts it, or something out of context from other posts.

Not really. You're all over the place within the same post. Even your "big bold post" contradicted itself...

Try using more and better words - the "as few as possible" approach isn't doing it for you.

Do you enjoy nitpicking, or are you trying to mess with me? Just wondering.

Is there something bad about being as accurate as possible?

**** six, having it at the age of 8 is an anomaly.

Nnnnope.

When I said the average is 9 here, I had ignored what my female friends told me about themselves and went with what my sister told me years ago from her observation.

You know how averages work, right? For 9 to be the average, there needs to be one at eight for every one at ten, one at seven for every one at eleven, one at six for every one at twelve. Typically with biology there's a Gaussian distribution, so the further away you get from the average the fewer individuals there are and roughly half the population is at the average, with the other half either side.

Basing it on my own, and judging it strictly by the dozens of women I've talked to, the lowest number I got was 10. Actually, yesterday I asked a 3# year old American chick(lives there, never moved, so it's not just Middle eastern girls) that said she got it at 12 and never heard of anybody getting it before 10.

Okay, that's smashing. You know that the average age at menses has fallen in the last two decades, by a year and a half, right?

Without being indiscrete, within the population of females my 13 year old daughter knows, some started in late primary school (8-11), many in the first year of secondary school (11-12) and very few are yet to start. Yes, they talk about it a lot - I guess robbing each other of their childhoods?

8 being too late? **** that, it's too early.

Apparently there's a lot you don't know about puberty.

The first stage of puberty is a surge of androgens called the adrenarche. The average age for this is seven. This is followed by the thelarche (breast budding) in girls at around 9 and the menarche (first menstrual bleed) and spermarche (presence of spermatozoa in ejaculate) at a current average in the developed world at 12 (14 worldwide). These stages each correspond to a step on the Tanner Scale - Tanner 1 is a child, Tanner 4 is an adult - and pubarche typically starts between female thelarche and menarche/spermache in Tanner 2.

As I said earlier, unless you're taking daily blood samples for hormone levels (I suppose you could take testicular volume measurements for boys - that'd do it too), you can't tell if a child has entered puberty until they are well into it. Eight is too late - the majority of children have already started puberty.


There's also early onset and precocious puberty. Children who, due to endocrine disorder or exposure to high concentrations of environmental hormones, reach pubarche significantly earlier than their peers. As far as I'm aware - and it's been a while since I looked it up, or had reason to - the record for precocious puberty was a Peruvian girl named Lina Medina who came to attention when she delivered a son (allegedly to a particularly rapey uncle) aged 5. Lina was born with pubic hair and started her periods at 8... MONTHS.

The standing UK record for earliest childbirth is 9 years, 7 months and the USA beats us by two months at 9 years, 5 months. We see just under 10 instances of pre-12 pregnancy a year here.


Yep, eight's too early - unless you understand a single thing about puberty.

I've developed a theory (or hypothesis, if you'll nitpick that and dodge the argument as usual) regarding how/when you hit puberty. Given how you guys do things here though, I'd rather not share it.
Just answer this, preferably with a source: What's the percentage of females that hit puberty before the age of 8?

As explained above, it's about 75% hitting the adrenarche.

It's enough for me not to take the risk.

Oh wait now you're going to say it's not a "risk". Forget it..

Nope, you just haven't explained what "the risk" is - or if you have it's a risk that doesn't make sense.

What you said was that "the risk" of giving a child the talk is that 1% of them won't ask any more questions. That doesn't make any sense.

You could've stopped there instated of insinuating I'm a child molester. Friendly is your middle name, huh?

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. I didn't insinuate that anyone was a child molester.

Who's "us"?

Christ, it was literally the immediate next word and you quoted it. What are you even reading?

(other than us - parents are by far the largest proportion of abusers and killers of their children).

Grow an e-pair and say it. Don't worry, I'm not the type that likes reporting posts. Don't worry about the administrator here either, looks like he'd agree with you.

Again, what are you reading? Foolkiller's post is really phenomenally clear - boys discover masturbation by themselves. He then added a joke that boys who find out because their dad helps them are not particularly stable - you know, since that's child abuse and victims of child abuse can be psychologically scarred?

If a homosexual thinks all heterosexual people are homophobes, they are no better than homophobes. If a black guy thinks all non-black people are racists, he's no better than racist people. If an American thinks all Arabs are terrorists, he's no better than the real terrorists. If you disagree with that, you have problems

Again, you're not reading.

Your original comment was that people who don't agree with homophobes are homophobephobes. Taking your analogies above and making them appropriate to this statement, it's like suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with the racist black guy is themselves racist (through racismphobephobia), and that anyone who doesn't agree with the "American" is themselves a xenophobe (though xenophobephobia).

This means that you are suggesting that anyone who doesn't think all Arabs are terrorists is closed-minded and intolerant - which is a somewhat ridiculous view...


Intolerance of intolerance can be itself intolerant - but it can also be justified if the original intolerance is for wrong-thinking people whose ideas are actively harmful to other human beings.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Which I think you said is Bahrain, which much of the world considers dismal for civil rights. Sounds like it is working great.

..and I'm out. "much of the world" btw was claiming Iraq had WMDs.

Try using more and better words - the "as few as possible" approach isn't doing it for you

It would work if you didn't jump to conclusions and asked for more information nicely.

.Is there something bad about being as accurate as possible?

Yes. It's called being a smartass. I do it a lot, but not in a serious discussion. If you understood what the other person is trying to say, there's no need to nitpick.

You know that the average age at menses has fallen in the last two decades, by a year and a half, right?

Yes, that's actually part of my "hypothesis" about puberty. It supports it.

You know how averages work, right? For 9 to be the average, there needs to be one at eight for every one at ten, one at seven for every one at eleven, one at six for every one at twelve. Typically with biology there's a Gaussian distribution, so the further away you get from the average the fewer individuals there are and roughly half the population is at the average, with the other half either side.Okay, that's smashing.

Without being indiscrete, within the population of females my 13 year old daughter knows, some started in late primary school (8-11), many in the first year of secondary school (11-12) and very few are yet to start. Yes, they talk about it a lot - I guess robbing each other of their childhoods?

I see what you're trying to do, and I appreciate it because I often did this to troll people, but please stick to the point. Don't try to teach me mathematics. If we all used proper scientific terminology half the people won't understand. Not that you guys understand my layman terms, or anything I say anyway.

Apparently there's a lot you don't know about puberty.

This (the sub-discussion) wasn't about puberty. You were talking how traumatizing it would be for a girl to get period without knowing about it beforehand.

What's the percentage of females that MENSTRUATED before the age of 8?

What you said was that "the risk" of giving a child the talk is that 1% of them won't ask any more questions. That doesn't make any sense.

/facepalm.

What's the probability that the child asks questions about sex(etc) if he was exposed to intimacy(or whatever the **** you do to your significant other that you wouldn't do to your child)? Let's say, hypothetically, it's 1%, or as low as you want.

That 1% (or lower) chance of it happening, is a big enough risk for me to try to avoid exposing my kids (if I were to have any) to "intimacy".

Please ask questions if there's something unclear, instead of jumping to a conclusion.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. I didn't insinuate that anyone was a child molester

"unless you're actually having sex with them, which is really very harmful indeed." - you

.Christ, it was literally the immediate next word and you quoted it. What are you even reading?

It wasn't clear who you were referring to as "us". Us the teachers (if you're a teacher) or us the parents. I'm not a parent anyway, just in case you included me in the "us".

Again, what are you reading? Foolkiller's post is really phenomenally clear - boys discover masturbation by themselves.

I did too.

He then added a joke that boys who find out because their dad helps them are not particularly stable - you know, since that's child abuse and victims of child abuse can be psychologically scarred?Again, you're not reading.

He added that joke implying I'm that kind of father(and I'm not even a father). If he didn't mean to, he would've thought my post through and realized that I was referring to boys finding out from other kids.

Intolerance of intolerance can be itself intolerant - but it can also be justified if the original intolerance is for wrong-thinking people whose ideas are actively harmful to other human beings.

What do you call those soldiers that gave me dirty looks Mr. Accurate?

 

[afbarnes]

That was a great post and it's cool that you're open about your orientation!

Thank you! I am very open about it but only with those people that I am comfortable with! Strangers not so much! hahaha

To be honest, I don't really like it when heterosexual people do this either.

hahahahaha! that gave me a giggle!


@LeMansAid I understand your point, but I have different ways of showing my self, when with my friends (and maybe after a few drinks) i start to become a little bit more.. animated in the sense that I come off as more a gay person then if i was completely sober. Going about my day to day life people would only assume that I am straight unless someone else tells them, a couple of my friends have a habit of outing me to other people (not in a horrible way, it just slips out) but otherwise i am fairly comfortable with who i am and how i act, it just depends on who im with

 

[BHRxRacer]

Thank you! I am very open about it but only with those people that I am comfortable with! Strangers not so much! hahaha



hahahahaha! that gave me a giggle!


@LeMansAid I understand your point, but I have different ways of showing my self, when with my friends (and maybe after a few drinks) i start to become a little bit more.. animated in the sense that I come off as more a gay person then if i was completely sober. Going about my day to day life people would only assume that I am straight unless someone else tells them, a couple of my friends have a habit of outing me to other people (not in a horrible way, it just slips out) but otherwise i am fairly comfortable with who i am and how i act, it just depends on who im with

Is it homophobic to call the last part cute?

 

[Azuremen]

..and I'm out. "much of the world" btw was claiming Iraq had WMDs.

I'll correct myself to the much of the developed world. Despite having the USA as my location, I don't fall into the stereotype of calling a single country "much of the world."

Bahrain has continual issues with human rights. This is fact. For you to justify people "hiding" sexuality by stating it works in a country known to suppress rights is depressing. But it also explains your bizarrely naive view on the world if you think things are "alright" in Bahrain in terms of rights and freedoms.

 

[Imari]

Still implying I'm a homophobe. Unbelievable.

Hilarious.

I said that wasn't the case. I said I'd have the talk. I've said enough.

You've said that you'd have the talk if you had to, but that you'd do whatever you could on the one in a hundred chance that you might only have to deal with a truncated version of "the talk".

I didn't start anything. I made a joke about being a minority after finding out only 4.4% of people agree with me. How about adding an option in the poll? "OK as long as everyone keeps their sexuality out of public eye and kids' TV".

I'll get right on that.

Oh wait, I can't because I'm not the OP. Take it up with the right person.

I explained within 2 posts. You refused to believe it. It hurts you to see a different opinion about the subject without calling it a homophobe.

I've spent however long trying to pry your reasoning out of you. As far as I can tell you're both homophobic AND heterophobic. You have a fear of sex.

You can tell me I'm wrong, but all the evidence you've presented so far seems to point pretty strongly to it.

[quot]The term “child labour” is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.
http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm

Ask them what their definition of "childhood" is and get back to me.[/QUOTE]

You want me to go to an organisation that you've cherry picked and ask them a question that you've cherry picked, and this will prove what exactly?

 

[Famine]

It would work if you didn't jump to conclusions and asked for more information nicely

Asking questions of you has got us nowhere.

Yes. It's called being a smartass. I do it a lot, but not in a serious discussion. If you understood what the other person is trying to say, there's no need to nitpick.

Actually it's fundamental to a serious discussion - if the terms being used are not being used properly no discussion can occur. That notwithstanding, what you're saying isn't clear in any way, even when you do manage to be consistent, post-to-post.

Yes, that's actually part of my "hypothesis" about puberty. It supports it.

Still as vague as ever.

I see what you're trying to do, and I appreciate it because I often did this to troll people, but please stick to the point. Don't try to teach me mathematics. If we all used proper scientific terminology half the people won't understand. Not that you guys understand my layman terms, or anything I say anyway.

You do us a disservice - and besides, average, mean, median and mode are taught to kids before they learn about puberty.

You stated 9 was an average age to start menstruation (which it's not, by the way) and then said 8 was "too early" to teach about it. That indicates you don't know what averages are, or you wouldn't be using one as if it were a lower bound.

This (the sub-discussion) wasn't about puberty. You were talking how traumatizing it would be for a girl to get period without knowing about it beforehand.

What's the percentage of females that MENSTRUATED before the age of 8?

I already said it's about one-sixth. In the post you quoted. Since you just whined about me trying to teach you mathematics, you can work the percentage out from there yourself - or perhaps ask for information more nicely?

/facepalm.

What's the probability that the child asks questions about sex(etc) if he was exposed to intimacy(or whatever the **** you do to your significant other that you wouldn't do to your child)? Let's say, hypothetically, it's 1%, or as low as you want.

That 1% (or lower) chance of it happening, is a big enough risk for me to try to avoid exposing my kids (if I were to have any) to "intimacy".

Please ask questions if there's something unclear, instead of jumping to a conclusion.

I asked you:

You won't tell your daughter she'll menstruate because there's a 1% chance she won't ask follow-up questions? What?

This was your answer:

No. Maybe I mis-phrased that one. There's a 99% chance she has follow up questions, and as I said in the conclusion post, I'd answer.

The reason for "shielding" the kids, is hope of that 1% chance to happen. Is that clear?

That didn't make any sense. I asked again:

Nope. The reason for shielding kids from any concept of sexuality is because if you tell them about it 1 in 100 of them won't ask any other questions? That's not a reason - it doesn't even make sense as a concept, much less as reasoning.

You didn't answer.

Your explanation above is just as useless. You're now saying you won't expose your own sexual activity to your (future) children because there's a 1 in 100 chance they ask what you were doing? What does that have to do with your original statement that you won't give "the talk" to a 9 year old girl because there's a 1 in 100 chance she won't ask you any more questions about it?

"unless you're actually having sex with them, which is really very harmful indeed." - you

Right. And what does that have to do with insinuating you molest children?

It wasn't clear who you were referring to as "us". Us the teachers (if you're a teacher) or us the parents. I'm not a parent anyway, just in case you included me in the "us".

Yes, it wasn't clear in any way that the very next word was who I was referring to as "us". And no, I wasn't including you unless you are a parent (which you aren't) and thus in the group of people who has children:

Embarrassed parents can't be trusted with the job so none of us are - which puts us in the amusing situation of having our children told about sex by the people most likely to sexually abuse them (other than us - parents are by far the largest proportion of abusers and killers of their children). Of course they also do it too late.

He added that joke implying I'm that kind of father(and I'm not even a father).

Nope. That one's in your head.

What do you call those soldiers that gave me dirty looks Mr. Accurate?

I'd call them by their rank.

But if you want a term, I'd say they were "racially profiling".

 

[afbarnes]

Is it homophobic to call the last part cute?

Urm.. no? I don't think homophobic is the right word that you're looking for?

 

[G.T.Ace]

..and I'm out. "much of the world" btw was claiming Iraq had WMDs.

I know this is waaaaaaaay off-topic, but...
They had WMD, not only did they use them (gas) in the 1980's, Wikileaks documents prove that US troops found more.
Not justifying any wars here, but it's an important historic fact.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'll correct myself to the much of the developed world. Despite having the USA as my location, I don't fall into the stereotype of calling a single country "much of the world."

Bahrain has continual issues with human rights. This is fact. For you to justify people "hiding" sexuality by stating it works in a country known to suppress rights is depressing. But it also explains your bizarrely naive view on the world if you think things are "alright" in Bahrain in terms of rights and freedoms.

You know absolutely nothing about Bahrain's political situation so please stay out of and don't make such claims. Your only sources about Bahrain's "revolution" are the same sources that said Iraq had WMDs, and for the same reasons too.

Hilarious.

Isn't it?

You've said that you'd have the talk if you had to, but that you'd do whatever you could on the one in a hundred chance that you might only have to deal with a truncated version of "the talk".

No. I won't repeat what I said. Take it from it what you want.

Oh wait, I can't because I'm not the OP. Take it up with the right person.

YOU take it up with the right person. It's their fault they didn't put that option. I voted for the statement that sutied my belief best.

I've spent however long trying to pry your reasoning out of you. As far as I can tell you're both homophobic AND heterophobic. You have a fear of sex.

You've just outdone yourself.

You can tell me I'm wrong, but all the evidence you've presented so far seems to point pretty strongly to it.

No but you'd like to think so.

You want me to go to an organisation that you've cherry picked and ask them a question that you've cherry picked, and this will prove what exactly?

This will answer the questions you asked me. I won't answer myself because I know you'll misinterpret it, and ask me to repeat it 10000 times.

Asking questions of you has got us nowhere.Actually it's fundamental to a serious discussion - if the terms being used are not being used properly no discussion can occur. That notwithstanding, what you're saying isn't clear in any way, even when you do manage to be consistent, post-to-post.

When someone is screaming for help that he's being strangled by a Chinese guy, you go help the guy instead of spending an hour telling him he's actually Japanese.

Still as vague as ever.

About that part yes. I told you I won't discuss it. Erase the latter part, consider the "yes" only. Ok?

You do us a disservice - and besides, average, mean, median and mode are taught to kids before they learn about puberty.

Just as everyone should know by now the difference between hypothesis and theory, right? It doesn't matter what people's education are, what the right thing is. I'm all for trying to spread the accurate terminology, but ignoring a point in a discussion for the sake of it is extremely annoying.

I already said it's about one-sixth.

In the planet I live in, it's 1 in 100. Actually it's 0 in 100, but I put a 1 case for the odd case.

What does that have to do with your original statement that you won't give "the talk" to a 9 year old girl because there's a 1 in 100 chance she won't ask you any more questions about it?

That's the problem. I never said that. Even @Imari acknowledged that I CLEARLY SAID I WOULD GIVE THEM THE TALK IF THEY EVER ASK QUESTIONS.

Having the talk with the kids prematurely, may cause harm. Thus, I'd like to minimize the external influence that may prompt the kids to ask me to do the talk. Is that clear? Please tell me it's clear.

Right. And what does that have to do with insinuating you molest children?

Do you have to say it directly? You can just apologize for accidentally hinting at it.

Nope. That one's in your head.

It isn't.

I'd call them by their rank.

But if you want a term, I'd say they were "racially profiling".

You really justify that? Two soldiers, not on duty, racially profiling a local for having a beard. Wow.

Urm.. no? I don't think homophobic is the right word that you're looking for?

..Is there a right word for that kind of thing?

 

[Azuremen]

You know absolutely nothing about Bahrain's political situation so please stay out of and don't make such claims. Your only sources about Bahrain's "revolution" are the same sources that said Iraq had WMDs, and for the same reasons too.

My government isn't my only news source. Actually, it isn't my news source at all. Despite your warped and ignorant view of the US (gay marriage is legal were I live, to reference a comment you made in the Islam thread) we have a rather free media and a minimal amount of censorship.

Bahrain has a great deal of self-censorship because of the way laws are handled there. The fact they are kicking international reporters out, censoring channels from outside of the country, and suppressing local reports suggests I may have access to more information on the political situation in Bahrain than you.

Kind of like China.

 

[afbarnes]

..Is there a right word for that kind of thing?

Well I don't know why it would be homophobic to like that small paragraph?

 

[Azuremen]

Well I don't know why it would be homophobic to like that small paragraph?

Given his general attitude, I think his use of the word "cute" was sarcastic and thus his concern for appearing homophobic.