 |
| yoda_dog |
on Sun 8 Aug 10, 11:53 AM to yoda_dog's blog.
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/279968/
For those that have been censored on the above blog, feel free to comment here. I won't be censoring unless a post breaks the AUP 
Here's my reply to this post:
| Slavekeeper wrote: I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think homosexuality is unnatural, but that does not stop me from having homosexual friends and inviting them to my home. It's called tolerance and trying to understand someone elses point of view. |
To use that analogy, you would need to write books about homosexual fantasy, saying it's natural in a place that doesn't exist, but then say in real life it's unnatural.
As for tolerance, my irony-meter just exploded 
| 8 Aug 10, 12:11 PM Prunesquallor UK(RG), 7 yrs |
We tend to use the word 'tolerant' today in place of 'accepting'. The whole point of tolerance is that you can only be tolerant of things you don't like. 'To loose' means 'to let go'. 'Lose' means you can't find it. 'Discrete' means separate. 'Crescendo' means 'growing'. 'Fulsome' doesn't mean 'full'. | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 12:52 PM andrewsean UK(CO), 5 yrs |
I find it hard to understand a lifestyle based on works of FICTION. If a couple chose to live by this guide then fair play to them but it's not our thing at all. We do have friends that live a Gorean relationship and it works for them and we welcome them to our home the same as all our other friends. As for homsexuals being unnatural we also have many bisexual and homosexual friends and their acceptance of us is as important to us as our acceptance of them. NOT tolerence, ACCEPTANCE which always comes with support and love from us both. The narrow minded views of the OP in the link you sent is one of the reasons I feel that the scene in general has such a bad reaction from the general population, tollerence and acceptance are 2 different things in life. Lets all learn to tell the difference between the 2 and actually ACCEPT each others views and stop judging people by their own standards. I do hope that some people on this site actually read this and understand what I am trying to say. Andy x
Yes I AM hung like a horse, it may be Barbies horse but it's still a bloody horse. | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 1:03 PM relaxed1 UK(BR), 6 yrs |
Tolerance to me is just something to be taught to the intolerant. As a bisexual dominant cripple, I find the concept of tolerance fairly unpleasant, with its inference of being allowed to exist so long as nobody has to see one. Acceptance is the only acceptable state. "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars." - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 1:12 PM ThedaVamp UK, 6 yrs |
I don't get it - what's there to tolerate or accept? Gay bi pan trans cis whatever - who a person fancies, or fucks or doesn't, has absolutely no bearing on their ability to be either a decent, or nasty human being. It's a moot point. And how the hell does a person determine what's 'natural'? Homosexuality features all over the animal kingdom (of which we are a part) no one questions whether it's natural that some monkeys or dolphins are gay. We'd accept without question that their behaviour was 'natural', why not our own species?
Perverted Pederast Puppetmistress Pimp Pandering to the Patriarchy... apparently | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 1:51 PM MisterBear UK(WA), 8 yrs  |
Ahh what's natural and what's not. I'm just so glad that houses occur naturally or I'd have to live in a tree or a cave. And it's a good job that cars grow on trees, or I'd have to walk to work where I naturally breed computers and not genetically modify them at all. I always behave. I just don't specify how. | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 2:02 PM BarbieSlutLoki UK(E), 6 yrs |
The problem is human beings are naturally intolerant By nature we're wary of strangers and anything that our society consider 'different' But conversely theres no reason why anyone can't learn to be accepting of everyone
Saying that I'd find the whole Gorean thing slightly amusing, and would struggle to take it seriously, but then I don't claim to perfect The first rule of Brat Club, we don't talk about Brat Club... | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 2:22 PM ThedaVamp UK, 6 yrs |
But that's my point - I don't see why who other people are attracted to makes them 'different'. We all like 'different' people, we don't all find the same people attractive - I've got a thing for gangly sorts with big noses, my friend likes short and stocky - neither of us would say the other's tastes are 'unnatural'. Perverted Pederast Puppetmistress Pimp Pandering to the Patriarchy... apparently | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 4:57 PM The_TOGmeister UK(BA), 4 yrs  |
But Are we? If so, why do we spend so much time teaching children to "BEWARE OF STRANGERS" or to distance themselves from anything that they are not used to. This can't be "natural" awareness surely, but something that is taught. Perhaps it's just us picking up the bad vibes of those who brought us up. Second childhood? Me? I haven't left the first one yet! | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 4:58 PM Lord_Gobbimort 6 yrs |
Sadly cos humans are all about "I am right about everything and your views and actions must conform to me". When you add into the mix sex then its petrol to the flames. Sadly there are too many people not satisfied with sex, they end in the same pattern of more sex than me is a slut, less is a prude and differant is a perv. Vanillas aside for a minute tho, there is no excuse for such thinking here. BDSMers should know better. commitment is like ham and eggs. the chicken makes a contribution, the pig makes a commitment. | ||
| 8 Aug 10, 5:30 PM The_TOGmeister UK(BA), 4 yrs |
Havig like Tanos read about 98% of John Normans books and I include the"long boring bits" rather than just "The wanky bits", I soon came to the conclusion that the author- probably due to his own predjudices is not even interested in the SUBMISSIVE woman but more than interested in the SUBSERVIENT woman. His whole philosophy seems to be based upon the theory that women are a subspecies of human being, one who is not even allowed to even think she might be equal to a man. Some of his novels based in earths history which carried this theme were even pilloried in the United States, one which was set prior to the Wounded Knee masacre, caused so much bad feeling it ended in Norman apologising to the Lakota peoples of North America. I am sure most of the people on this site know the difference between submissive and subservient. To those who don't think there is a difference I would suggest they buy a dictionary and look the words up.
Second childhood? Me? I haven't left the first one yet! |
