RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 9:34:48 AM)

quote:

I feel sorry for you Arpig. You seem to have a need to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. It says a lot about the type of person you are, which is someone who comes across as very narrow minded. I disagreed with your belief that sexual preferences involving bisexuality are bigoted. I still stand by my words on that.
You see what you want to see. I am denigrating you in this thread because you have consistently made stupid post after stupid post. I am no more narrow minded than you are, rather I would say substantially less so. I can recognize my biases, prejudices, and bigoted opinions for what they are. You, on the other hand, are so far in denial that in your rush to disprove my contention, you outright restate my contention as a fact to oppose that contention. That is just pathetic.



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 9:37:23 AM)

quote:

How do you know I am home? How do you know I have guests? Assumptions my dear, baseless assumptions made in an effort to belittle me. Quite funny actually.


It probably comes from this post:


quote:

Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I am very calm. I am joking about the thread with a friend who is having her morning coffee across the table from me. We are getting quite a chuckle out of some of the things posted.


which to be fair might be interpreted as happening at your home.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 9:52:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

~FR~

homosexuality has yet to PROVEN as a PREFERENCE.


I know it was a fast reply, but I wanted to clarify. 

My reference to sexual preference was in response to the argument that a straight woman who has a sexual preference (chooses not to be intimate with a bisexual male) is a bigot.  I think the word is inappropriately applied here.  While she MIGHT be a bigot, her sexual preference does not implicitly imply she is. 

Fact of the matter, I probably wouldn't actively seek out a relationship with someone who was bisexual, ie - I'm biased.  However, I WOULD stand beside them in a picket line or support them in lobbying against and opposing any laws that prohibit their choices in the matter.  I am NOT strongly intolerant of their sexual proclivities, I AM strongly intolerant of situations that are bigoted toward an individuals rights and liberties.

I don't know if bisexuality is hardwired or a preference.  I'm not really in any position to argue either way about that.

ETA:  I realize that this is not the topic, and the thread veered off topic.  Truthfully, I can't bring myself to deal with the actual topic right now.  It is too personal for me, and a hypothetical I'm not comfortable in contemplating under the circumstances.  Since I don't want to be guilty of furthering a hijack, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion and go get my happy elsewhere.

WinD



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 10:08:40 AM)

quote:

Hypocritical you say? How does this differ from your preference in turning down
Hannahs' numerous offers of sex? She has stated numerous times that she is
bisexual, yet you refused her because, as you stated in the Fucking Mod thread,
you prefer a woman who will enjoy being with a man intimately. Hello?
I assume you mean the post where I said this:
quote:

Besides, I have no particular desire to fuck lesbians, I'm odd in that I prefer the women I have sex with to enjoy the experience as much as I do, if not more.
Well that was in this thread: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3837343 and was in reply to some sock puppet who posted that the only reason I recommended H, H, S & C's poly thread was because I wanted to fuck them.

The post in the Fucking Mod thread regarding why I turned down Hannah's offers was very much different, what I said was that I turned her offers down because I valued them more as friends than as cunts. I said "Quality cunt is easy to find, quality people are harder to find, and quality friends even more so. And they are quality" (Sorry, I can't give you an exact quote, the thread has been pulled). My point being that since there was no possibility of a long term relationship, I was not going to mess up a good friendship for a quick fuck. If you refer to my profile, you will find the following bit of text in the first paragraph: "I am not looking casual play or hook-ups." Thus since I am not on here for quick sex, and that was all that was offered and it would jeopardize a friendship I value, I declined.

Hopefully this will clear up your confusion on this point.

quote:

Are you anti-bigot, or is the argumentative tone here based solely on the
fact that most of the posters here refuse to believe in your definition?
Well, as a rule I am anti-bigotry, and the argumentative tone was set in the manner in which my original posts on the subject were received and remained due to the continuing stupidity of a poster or two who have argued from a position of utter incomprehension all night. I was not particularly argumentative with Chatte or with Cynthia, so it is the individual posters who determine the tone I take with them.

quote:

Or is it because they have no interest in being with someone with preferences such as yours?
That has never crossed my mind, so no it's not that.

quote:

However, I would not choose to be physically intimate with a man who has a
desire in being intimate with another man. I am unable to magically turn myself
from woman to man and then back again, so I would not be able offer him
fulfillment of one of his desires
Unless I am seriously misreading this, you, surprisingly enough, don't understand what being bisexual means either.

Wow, I am really quite surprised at the degree of ignorance there is on these boards regarding bisexuality.



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 10:19:03 AM)

quote:

It is my opinion that someone who would use the word bigot, in reference to another person's sexual preference, and would argue it passionately, is showing their own bigotry.  If you can't be tolerant of another person's views and preferences, you are pretty much espousing the very bigotry you are claiming the other person has.  Sexual preference is not bigotry, it is bias.  There is a difference.
Well clearly you have not read the thread, because nobody, to the best of my recollection, has used the word bigot in reference to anybody's sexual preference except Heather in one post, where she referred to two of her own sexual preferences as being irrational and bigoted.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 10:32:46 AM)

My previous post was about bias and prejudice - which is what I thought was being argued.

Then I read this post:

quote:

I feel sorry for you Arpig. You seem to have a need to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. It says a lot about the type of person you are, which is someone who comes across as very narrow minded. I disagreed with your belief that sexual preferences involving bisexuality are bigoted. I still stand by my words on that.


and thought, damn, maybe I missed something or misconstrued the whole thing (it has been known to happen, I'm fallible)  and posted what I did.  Either way, I stand by the points I've made.  If you want to debate those points, I'm afraid you'll have to make another thread or engage me in C-mail.  I've already stated I don't want to be guilty of continuing to derail a topic.

Best wishes,

WinD




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 10:50:56 AM)

PS, I went back and found these references to the word bigot in this thread,

Post 33:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3848355
Post 59:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3848693 
Post 80:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3849591
Post 81:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3849600
Post 86:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3849659

I became bored with researching it at this point, but I think I made my point.  So clearly, neither of us read the thread or our attention spans are at fault.  Either way, the word bigot was thrown around a great deal in this thread. 



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 10:54:05 AM)

quote:

Arpig, actually Heather has said it. She claims her being gay is a concept of being hard wired, but my sexual attractions are concepts of phobia, bigotry and prejudice.
Noooo, not to my recollection. The best I can recall is that she said that her being attracted to females was hard wired, and thus a sexual preference, but that you not being attracted to bisexuals or homosexuals was not hard wired and thus not a sexual preference. If I have that wrong, please point me to where she said it, and I'll happily concede this point.

quote:

And as for my being bisexual and my not being sexually attracted to men who are bisexual has no correlation.  I sure the hell wouldn't call a guy who isn't sexually attracted to me because i am also attracted to women at times phobic or bigot.   I would understand how that could be.
Well on this I will say we have different opinions, but in all honesty I saw it more as a touch of hypocrisy rather than as anything terribly relevant to the overall discussion. You are correct, your bisexuality really has no serious bearing on the topic, but you are the one who raised it as some sort of prop for your position which was unwise, as if anything it weakens rather than strengthens of your position.
quote:

Yeah, i resent gays and lesbians -- Arpig instead of breaking up posts why not respond to the post as a whole concept.  Your need to respond to sentences you take out of the whole is silly and only shows you incapable of responding in a discussion but instead want to pick and choose things to put words into people's mouths.
You have your posting style and I have mine. I happen to find your refusal to capitalize the first person pronoun silly and indicative of a whole lot of serious issues, but I'm not going to whine about it. You see what you want to see in my posting style, any attempt to dispute that would be a waste of keystrokes.
quote:

Why not post an actual post that outlines your views instead of trying to single out sentences people say to try and further your argument, or are you incapable of actually discussing things but instead need to take things out of context?
I did. a long, long time ago, and I'm not taking anything out of context, the quote is to make clear to the reader exactly what part of each post I am responding to in each part of my post. Again, if you don't like it...oh well, sucks to be you.
quote:

I am not playing fast and loose with anything, my body doesn't REACT sexually to men who are attracted sexually to other men
And how does your body know that a man is sexually attracted to other men?
quote:

The fact you think it can but don't believe gays and lesbians can then change what they are sexually attracted too means you are a hypocrit in your need to tell everyone else they are wrong but Heather is correct.
The fact that you actually typed and posted that means that you simply have no idea what you are talking about and wanted to get in another White Knight style dig, so I will give you my standard response to such idiocy: Go fuck yourself.




Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:00:23 AM)

quote:

but I think I made my point.
Ummm, no. I'm afraid you are wrong. You said people had used the word bigot in reference to other people's sexual preferences. You did not show that to be the case.
quote:

So clearly, neither of us read the thread or our attention spans are at fault. 
I read the thread and my attention span is not in any way impaired.
quote:

Either way, the word bigot was thrown around a great deal in this thread. 
Oh absolutely, just not in reference to other people's sexual preferences.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:07:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

but I think I made my point.
Ummm, no. I'm afraid you are wrong. You said people had used the word bigot in reference to other people's sexual preferences. You did not show that to be the case.
quote:

So clearly, neither of us read the thread or our attention spans are at fault. 
I read the thread and my attention span is not in any way impaired.
quote:

Either way, the word bigot was thrown around a great deal in this thread. 
Oh absolutely, just not in reference to other people's sexual preferences.



Yes, the word bigot was implied toward someone's sexual preference. The statements were made.  The posts are there to review if you wish or don't.  Any attempt to argue otherwise is backpedaling (your word, not mine)  I prefer to hear someone be an adult and hear them use the phrase "I concede your point."  If you can't or won't, that's your cross to bear, not mine.



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:15:09 AM)

quote:

Oh absolutely, just not in reference to other people's sexual preferences.


Well yeah it has been but in connection with people's sexual preferences based on faulty assumptions such as believing a bi man would automatically leave a woman as soon as he finds and becomes attracted to another man.



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:17:22 AM)

I am not going to concede your point, because my point all along is that the thing being referred to as bigoted (a blanket refusal to consider a bisexual man as a partner based on his bisexuality alone) is not a sexual preference. Therefore, nobody referred to anybody's sexual preference as bigotted. Except in foolish attempts to to prove the point that sexual preferences were not the same thing as bigotry, something that nobody actually said, yet which many,many people, including you, want to pretend was said.

You clearly did not read the thread.



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:23:11 AM)

You are right Zephy, Chatte (if I recall correctly)  did make such a remark and may very well have stated that the referenced belief was a sexual preference, I 'm not sure. Thanks for reminding me of that.

So WinD, I concede your point. There was, I believe, at least one reference to another person's sexual preference as bigoted.



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:28:42 AM)

quote:

which to be fair might be interpreted as happening at your home.
But I'm not at home my dear, and that statement could just as easily refer to me being in a cafe (which I'm not either...but I could be) [:D]



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:37:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

You are right Zephy, Chatte (if I recall correctly)  did make such a remark and may very well have stated that the referenced belief was a sexual preference, I 'm not sure. Thanks for reminding me of that.

So WinD, I concede your point. There was, I believe, at least one reference to another person's sexual preference as bigoted.


Thank you. 



Arpig -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 11:44:39 AM)

You are most welcome my dear. [:)]



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 12:02:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

which to be fair might be interpreted as happening at your home.
But I'm not at home my dear, and that statement could just as easily refer to me being in a cafe (which I'm not either...but I could be) [:D]


oh yeah? well....it was early in the morning and besides I'm sick [8D] Besides I wrote might be.



poise -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 12:05:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Wow, I am really quite surprised at the degree of ignorance there is on these boards.

As am I. Thank you for your demonstration.



gungadin09 -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 12:06:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

It's a matter of what a person is sexually attracted to.


You can't be sexually attracted or repelled by something that is invisible and only exists as a possibility. That requires conscious thought to do. So, if you are "turned off" by a person being bisexual, then you have chosen to be so, based on an irrational set of ideas that allows you to attach non-existent negative characteristics to what is a perfectly neutral trait.


i wouldn't call bisexuality a possibility, but rather a sexual orientation that exists whether a person acts on it or not. Your possibility/actuality argument doesn't make sense to me. Bisexuality is real, it's there, you just can't see it. But, yes, bisexuality is an invisible trait, and being turned off by it is just as irrational as being turned off by someone who likes cheesecake (or, to put it another way, someone who possibility might eat a piece of cheesecake someday.) And i would defend a person's right to reject a partner for THAT irrational reason as well. There is no rule that sexual attraction has to be rational. i think it's odd that You seem to think people ought to be held accountable for what turns them on, and i think it's even odder that, thinking that, you distinguish between getting turned on (or off) by a visible trait versus an invisible one.

But, yes, if a person attaches non-existent negative characteristics to a perfectly neutral trait, and then uses THAT as the basis for forming opinions about people with that trait... THAT'S BIGOTRY.

pam



LadyPact -> RE: Would you be less inclined to submit to a man who'd been raped? (9/18/2011 12:32:40 PM)

This was totally the wrong thread to read while I'm waiting for the caffeine to kick in.  Some of these arguments have been rather confusing, but I'm still not seeing anything  that takes this out of the preference camp.  Somebody said bring something new or go home.  I'll try that.

There was something back there that pointed to the difference of a bisexual person who had sexual attraction to both genders and a bisexual person who had acted on that attraction.  I'm getting this to mean that now we're splitting hairs on who a person has actually slept with, rather than who they might have wanted to sleep with.  One's biased and the other is not?  How do we draw that conclusion?

I suppose I am using the parallel of bisexuality to Me being poly optional.  If My relationships were to end today and I was looking for a partner, it could be reasonably said that some hard wired monogamous people could potentially not want a relationship with Me.  The reason for this would be due to who (which is really how many people) I was involved with before.  Nowhere in that am I saying that I would have to be poly again, very much the same as saying a bisexual male might not ever have sex with another male again.  It's the fact that I already have been that make Me bad partner material for anyone who is only interested in monogamy and only wants partners that have always been monogamous.

That's preference.



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625