Lgbtq...(gay) magic players at your LGS and community acceptance

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Let me go out on a limb here and speculate that those psychological issues stem much more from bigoted peers telling you you're horrible than from a lack of sex. As you say yourself, consider the metagame.

I do consider the metagame. In this case, my base consideration is a situation where someone is neither strongly accepted or rejected for their sexuality, but society (outside limited circles) still holds their sexual expression as being taboo. You can get all kinds of unpleasant results from that, ranging from gay self-expression (not just sexual) being highly insular, internalized homophobia from a constant and unending stream of microaggressions (even hearing people use "gay" or implications of gay sex pejoratively adds up something fierce), and other such issues stemming not from open bigotry but from a passively bigoted atmosphere.

The way I see it is that you downplay the possibility of breaking away from one's natural inclinations.

If it isn't too flippant of me to say, I think I of all people on this forum know a thing or ten about the futility of trying to fight one's intrinsic inclinations. You can't stray too far from your inherent range without negative psychological effect, even if those negative effects aren't devastating.

And your argument here seems to hinge on all such people being either naturally inclined toward celibacy or liars.

It's more that some people are inclined towards celibacy (whether asexual or not), some towards hypersexuality, and many more in the whole spectrum between them.

True enough. We disagree on the proportion of people in such a 'very sexual' category. I'd expect them to be about as common as strictly asexual people. I'd expect your 'not a valid option' group to be inflated with quite a few 'just don't wanna' people (of which I am one!).

I'd actually expect something like a normal distribution with most people clustered around an average level of inclination towards sexual self-expression (note when I say this I mean any form of sexual behaviour, not just intercourse). In other words, people who wouldn't like either celibacy or extremely frequent sex.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Misclick

And if a person using faulty logic such as "you have a green shirt on so you must be gay!" also uses that logic to figure out what to do with someone they think is gay, then there might be some cause for alarm, don't you agree?

Might be. But I still wouldn't hasten to call them bigoted if they haven't actually shown any clearly bigoted behavior. One can buy into minor stereotypes of a given group without actually marginalizing them or placing oneself on some sort of higher standing. I've had a friend or two assume I had a heavy interest in musicals or fashion, but that was ultimately just some minor silliness from people that were the polar opposite of bigoted. Bigotry has to mean something more than getting something wrong.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

I do consider the metagame. In this case, my base consideration is a situation where someone is neither strongly accepted or rejected for their sexuality, but society (outside limited circles) still holds their sexual expression as being taboo. You can get all kinds of unpleasant results from that, ranging from gay self-expression (not just sexual) being highly insular, internalized homophobia from a constant and unending stream of microaggressions (even hearing people use "gay" or implications of gay sex pejoratively adds up something fierce), and other such issues stemming not from open bigotry but from a passively bigoted atmosphere.

But we're still talking about an environment that is, at some level, pervasively unfriendly. We're still talking about the social environment, rather than the lack of certain sexual or gay activities. It's like you're pointing to some story about some gay kids being banned from prom and saying, "see? it's damaging to kids if they don't attend the prom."

I'd actually expect something like a normal distribution with most people clustered around an average level of inclination towards sexual self-expression (note when I say this I mean any form of sexual behaviour, not just intercourse). In other words, people who wouldn't like either celibacy or extremely frequent sex.

To use the most obvious example, you're leaving spiritual inclinations out of the picture. In a war between sexual and spiritual desires wherein a person feels attracted to sex and called to celibacy, there's no clear and documentable answer as to which side can win and which side should win. Spiritual inclinations come with their own subjective rewards which just might be enough to counter any supposed psychological negatives.

And my point is that this would be a predetermined battle for only the most sexualized or most asexual people. I think it more of a gray area for most people. Of course, if you don't have the spiritual inclinations or any other subjective counter-inclination standing in your way, then sex will be more likely to win out.

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

But we're still talking about an environment that is, at some level, pervasively unfriendly. We're still talking about the social environment, rather than the lack of certain sexual or gay activities. It's like you're pointing to some story about some gay kids being banned from prom and saying, "see? it's damaging to kids if they don't attend the prom."

If, say, we're talking about a gay kid who wants to go to prom with his partner but "chooses" not to because of negative social opinion, then I fail to see how the lack of such activity and the extrinsic factors acting upon that person are separable. I mean, sure, realistically speaking you may have LGB individuals who simply don't want to go to prom (I didn't and don't really regret not going but my experience is not everyone's experience), and you have those who are indeed prevented solely by negative attitudes.

To use the most obvious example, you're leaving spiritual inclinations out of the picture.

To put it bluntly, I'm not a very spiritual person, so I'm not going to focus on any spiritual aspects of anything in favour of focusing on the psychological and emotional (although if you mean "spiritual" as in the psychological component of spiritual belief rather than being its own actual thing, sure, I'll go there).

And my point is that this would be a predetermined battle for only the most sexualized or most asexual people. I think it more of a gray area for most people.

Well, no, pretty much anyone acting too far outside their normal range of intrinsic inclinations is going to run into some kind of trouble. It may not be the kind of extreme, crippling pain experienced by some, but anything negative is, well, negative—someone could choose to rub themselves down with sandpaper every day for some reason or another, but that's still going to cause pain they probably won't enjoy even if it is totally bearable.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

To put it bluntly, I'm not a very spiritual person, so I'm not going to focus on any spiritual aspects of anything in favour of focusing on the psychological and emotional (although if you mean "spiritual" as in the psychological component of spiritual belief rather than being its own actual thing, sure, I'll go there).

Yes, that is what I mean. I'm not religious myself.

Well, no, pretty much anyone acting too far outside their normal range of intrinsic inclinations is going to run into some kind of trouble. It may not be the kind of extreme, crippling pain experienced by some, but anything negative is, well, negative—someone could choose to rub themselves down with sandpaper every day for some reason or another, but that's still going to cause pain they probably won't enjoy even if it is totally bearable.

Yes, you said that, and my response was that celibacy as defined by your various terms is not going to be "too far outside" for most people.

edit: And to add to that, anything negative is negative, but there's going to be a certain level of 'negative' that is perfectly acceptable for spiritual/social/ect goals. There's a certain level of negative that is very, very far from rendering a choice invalid.

[Teia Rabishu]

Well, if a sexual person decides to repress this sexuality for what they believe to be spiritual reasons, then that's their choice, but I remind you that in this case we're still talking about homosexual people, rather than, say, homoromantic asexual people. And I really do have to question the gains they get, because it seems to me that any gains would be strictly illusory. Just to take an example of a stance I've seen several religions push, that of "it's okay to be gay but not okay to have gay sex," then by internalizing that, what you're really internalizing is the belief that expressing yourself according to your intrinsic desires is a bad, shameful thing, all for a sense of approval from an outside source. No matter how you slice it, it's unnecessarily unhealthy, and something doesn't have to be cripplingly painful before it becomes wrong.

Here's something to consider. When that pattern (i.e. external approval continent upon one retaining a sense of shame about and abstinence from some undesired behaviour) happens with the outside source being an individual, for example a partner or a parent, it's called abuse. I don't see why that pattern is any different in nature when a religious institution is the source of this sense of shame and contingent acceptance. The person may believe that their reward for making the "choice" to repress their desires is worth it, but that doesn't mean it actually is (again, you could choose to rub yourself down with sandpaper every single day but I think we can both agree that contingencies being placed upon such self-inflicted pain are not a good thing and that the "choice" to do so is not a healthy one).

[Ulfsaar]

Lots of sexual deviants at my card shop, not a big deal at all. We're there to play Magic, not get personal.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

what you're really internalizing is the belief that expressing yourself according to your intrinsic desires is a bad, shameful thing

But human beings in general DO have intrinsic desires that are bad and shameful. We might have desires to solve problems with unnecessary violence. Desires for revenge. Desires to deceive for personal gain. Et cetera.

The more you generalize your notion that intrinsic = good and repression (read also: discipline) = bad, the more obvious it becomes that it is a silly rule with a thousand exceptions.

Here's something to consider. When that pattern (i.e. external approval continent upon one retaining a sense of shame about and abstinence from some undesired behaviour) happens with the outside source being an individual, for example a partner or a parent, it's called abuse.

That's a horrendously open-ended definition of 'abuse' you have there. Consider revising it to something that doesn't include "I'm disappointed in you for lying."

The person may believe that their reward for making the "choice" to repress their desires is worth it, but that doesn't mean it actually is (again, you could choose to rub yourself down with sandpaper every single day but I think we can both agree that contingencies being placed upon such self-inflicted pain are not a good thing and that the "choice" to do so is not a healthy one).

Sandpaper leaves evidence, which your arguments have been lacking. You basically establish an axiom, sex must be fulfilled or else, argue for it with worst-case outliers and little else, and then insist as a general rule that, no really, don't believe them, they're hurting bad. 'Not a valid choice' remains a hyperbolic and subjective assessment at best.

edit: or, from another angle:

it's unnecessarily unhealthy

Yeah, you keep saying that, but what does it actually mean? Do the 'repressors' become unable to function socially? Do they lash out? Or do they just not look like your ideal image of gay men and women? What makes them unclean in your eyes?

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

But human beings in general DO have intrinsic desires that are bad and shameful. We might have desires to solve problems with unnecessary violence. Desires for revenge. Desires to deceive for personal gain. Et cetera.

This is utterly irrelevant without somehow establishing that gay sex is somehow bad and shameful. It seems that you're implicitly putting it on the same level as unnecessary violence, revenge, deception for personal gain, etc. But unlike any of those, consensual gay sex between adults harms precisely no one.

The more you generalize your notion that intrinsic = good and repression (read also: discipline) = bad, the more obvious it becomes that it is a silly rule with a thousand exceptions.

As I've said before, I think I of all people on this forum am very well and thoroughly aware of what happens when you try to apply "discipline" to repress intrinsic inclinations with respect to identity and self-expression. The short form is that it's not good.

That's a horrendously open-ended definition of 'abuse' you have there.

The idea behind it is still apparent. Verbal and emotional abuse are still types of abuse, even if they don't leave physical marks on the person.

You basically establish an axiom, sex must be fulfilled or else

For sexual people, it's healthier to be able to express oneself sexually than to try and entirely repress their sexuality because they feel external pressure to (they certainly wouldn't do it for intrinsic reasons, otherwise they'd be asexual). You were the one who brought up "spiritual" reasons, and alongside the kind of "being gay isn't a choice, having gay sex is" thing you were talking about earlier, this whole thing echoes the common "it's 'okay' to be gay but not to have gay sex" position of several homophobic religious denominations. And honestly, I don't think it really matters if the actual harm being done to a person who "chooses" for social or religious reasons to repress their sexuality is relatively minor—it's still oppressive.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but what does it actually mean? Do the 'repressors' become unable to function socially? Do they lash out? Or do they just not look like your ideal image of gay men and women? What makes them unclean in your eyes?

Suppose we were talking about emotionally abused people who are "choosing" to go along with what their abusers want. Would you make the same argument, the implicit statement that their abuse isn't really all that serious so long as they can still function in society or as long as they don't lash out? Of course you wouldn't, because supporting someone "choosing" to go along with an abuser is reprehensible. Why would it be any different when it's social and religious oppression at work? You said earlier in the thread that you're gay or bi, so I'm also wondering how you'd apply this concept of "discipline" to yourself—would you see yourself going along with social or religious pressure to repress your self-expression as a good thing? If so, would you see someone coerced into total silence because they fear their partner's wrath (and I have indeed met people who are, for psychological reasons, mute as a result of emotional abuse just as I'm describing) as a similarly good thing? If you wouldn't see the latter as a good thing, where does the difference come from?

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

This is utterly irrelevant without somehow establishing that gay sex is somehow bad and shameful. It seems that you're implicitly putting it on the same level as unnecessary violence, revenge, deception for personal gain, etc. But unlike any of those, consensual gay sex between adults harms precisely no one.

It'd be utterly irrelevant if it weren't the crux of that part of your argument. You paint shame as a terrible thing, but it isn't always.

As I've said before, I think I of all people on this forum am very well and thoroughly aware of what happens when you try to apply "discipline" to repress intrinsic inclinations with respect to identity and self-expression. The short form is that it's not good.

No good for you. That's the problem, you're extrapolating your own experience to everyone else's. People do successfully and happily abstain.

The idea behind it is still apparent. Verbal and emotional abuse are still types of abuse, even if they don't leave physical marks on the person.

Yes, verbal and emotional abuse exist. That's not why it's horrendously open-ended. There's nothing inherently abusive about instilling shame in someone for bad behavior. It's part of parenting. You are calling good parenting abusive.

Maybe you didn't mean to call something like "I'm disappointed in you for lying" abusive, but in that case you need to revise your definition.

And honestly, I don't think it really matters if the actual harm being done to a person who "chooses" for social or religious reasons to repress their sexuality is relatively minor—it's still oppressive.

Sure, if you create yet another overly inclusive definition that renders the term useless. It's oppressive in the sense that any kind of coercion, repression, OR any kind of discipline is oppressive. You're now saying that even if it's not harmful - if there's no actual harm - it's somehow still bad.

This might be the first time in a debate ever where "that's just your opinion" is a useful response.

Suppose we were talking about emotionally abused people who are "choosing" to go along with what their abusers want.

No, I won't suppose that, because your definition of 'abuse' is terrible.

so I'm also wondering how you'd apply this concept of "discipline" to yourself—would you see yourself going along with social or religious pressure to repress your self-expression as a good thing?

There was a period where I was ready to go along with the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality. I didn't have a change of heart because I felt oppressed - quite the opposite most of the time. I grew up surrounded by a bunch of people who managed the miracle of moral aversion to homosexual activity without bigotry. I had a change of heart because the teaching stopped making sense to me.

If you wouldn't see the latter as a good thing, where does the difference come from?

One's abuse and one isn't?

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

It'd be utterly irrelevant if it weren't the crux of that part of your argument. You paint shame as a terrible thing, but it isn't always.

If that's the case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind backing up precisely why shame in the context of gay sex in general is somehow good. I'd also like to know how such a reason could support that shame but not also include shame over straight sex in general, given that there's really no difference between the two except for what gender the attraction is towards.

No good for you. That's the problem, you're extrapolating your own experience to everyone else's. People do successfully and happily abstain.

Happiness which is, you'll find, all too illusory.

There's nothing inherently abusive about instilling shame in someone for bad behavior. It's part of parenting. You are calling good parenting abusive.

I'm calling "I support gay people but there'll be hell to pay if I ever catch you with someone of the same gender as you" abusive, sure. I mean, you probably wouldn't support a parent who has a "moral aversion" to black people trying to shame their kid at the thought of ever being with a black person. You have about as much control over your sexual orientation as you do your race (read: no control whatsoever), so how is shaming someone over the former not abusive?

It's oppressive in the sense that any kind of coercion, repression, OR any kind of discipline is oppressive. You're now saying that even if it's not harmful - if there's no actual harm - it's somehow still bad.

I never actually said that—I said that harm is still harm even if it's relatively minor. You keep using the word "discipline" as if repressing your sexuality is somehow like quitting smoking, as if it's somehow a neutral or even good choice to make, but you keep sidestepping the actual explanation of why one should feel any shame at all here, or how repression isn't actually harmful (and it's not just my experiences that back up "repressing your intrinsic inclinations of identity and presentation is distinctly unhealthy", either, and you can look to any number of people who've had to hide in the closet for the same thing).

No, I won't suppose that, because your definition of 'abuse' is terrible.

This is just dodging answering a question you don't like due to straw-grasping minutiae. You yourself acknowledge that verbal and physical abuse are, in fact, real things, so my question stands: Is that kind of abuse somehow not worth consideration as long as the abused person can still function in society, as long as they don't lash out?

I grew up surrounded by a bunch of people who managed the miracle of moral aversion to homosexual activity without bigotry.

That's rather impossible, especially considering "moral aversion to homosexual activity" is pretty much a textbook example of bigotry that's attempting to wrap itself up in the trappings of acceptance. You simply can't pull a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach in the case of homosexuality, given that there's really no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality except for the object of your desires (and should you try to argue this point, I'll remind you I'm pansexual so I can compare homosexual and heterosexual attraction very well). Your sexuality and intrinsic desires for self-expression are set in stone, so it's a double standard at best to accept one and try to deny the other (you could just as easily go the other way on it too, such as to say "I don't mind gay sex so long as the person involved isn't homosexual"). Assigning some kind of negative value to gay sex without doing the same for straight sex is extremely arbitrary, bigoted, and in the end there's absolutely no good reason to do that.

One's abuse and one isn't?

Care to explain what you think the difference is?

[Samyueru]

There's a gay guy that plays in my LGS, and there used to be 2 others, who don't play anymore, and there's a transexual guy who's a lesbian trapped in a mans body. *shurg* Doesn't really bother me, and it doesn't come up at all, really.

The gay guy is actually really really nice, and completely hilarious. "Go on, attack him! In the tits! Go on! Grab his tits and unscrew them like lightbulbs!"

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

Just to take an example of a stance I've seen several religions push, that of "it's okay to be gay but not okay to have gay sex," then by internalizing that, what you're really internalizing is the belief that expressing yourself according to your intrinsic desires is a bad, shameful thing, all for a sense of approval from an outside source. No matter how you slice it, it's unnecessarily unhealthy, and something doesn't have to be cripplingly painful before it becomes wrong.

On a certain level "expressing yourself according to your intrinsic desires" can be a bad and shameful thing. Not every intrinsic desire is a good thing, or something to be proud of.

[Bitsy]

I've been known to harass one gay player in particular. But he looks like a Vulcan and so its hard not to make Star Trek jokes when you play against him. He's only been out for about two years but he always kinda exuded a gay aura. Frankly, his sexuality is probably the most boring thing about him. He plays the upright Bass, is godly at fighting games, AND is an elf from outer space(ok he's actually Russian). His partner in crime Eric is nicknamed Faggy, which became even more funny after he came out because Eric isn't gay in the cool way. Faggy is a fat kid who wears Osiris sneakers, skinny jeans, and dyes his forelock a Day Glo color.

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by Samyueru

a transexual guy who's a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

Just so you know, if the person is a woman with a male body, then it's proper to refer to her as a transsexual woman (if nothing else it's a bit of a contradiction in terms to call her both a "guy" and a "lesbian", especially when she identifies as female).

Originally Posted by bLatch

On a certain level "expressing yourself according to your intrinsic desires" can be a bad and shameful thing. Not every intrinsic desire is a good thing, or something to be proud of.

Yeah, but the point I was making above is more that there's nothing bad/shameful about gay sex. Clearly not every intrinsic desire is a good thing, but in terms of sexuality, as long as everyone's of legal age, gives consent, and it all happens safely, I see no problem with any possible participant gender mix.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

If that's the case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind backing up precisely why shame in the context of gay sex in general is somehow good.

I'd argue that it isn't. But not because shame is forever a bad thing. Because gay sex is not inherently shameful. There's a little conflation of separate arguments here; I'm saying in this space that shame is not an automatic indicator of bad parenting. Often, the opposite is the case.

Happiness which is, you'll find, all too illusory.

You don't know that.

I mean, you probably wouldn't support a parent who has a "moral aversion" to black people trying to shame their kid at the thought of ever being with a black person.

Probably not. But 'abuse' is a word with a meaning, and that meaning does not automatically attach itself to any instance of a racist instilling racist ideals in his/her child.

You have about as much control over your sexual orientation as you do your race (read: no control whatsoever)

This is the point where you're continually obtuse: the more judgmental varieties of vegetarians and 'love the sinner' types share something in common that racists do not: ostensibly at least, they are judging action rather than attributes. They are judging behavior rather than inborn qualities. I'm not sure how else to hammer this point home but to point to a subject we probably otherwise agree on: ex-gays. You won't find a mainstream religious group that disapproves of their friends and family hanging around ex-gays, because (again, at least ostensibly) the abhorred behavior isn't there.

Hell, even the religious groups who are openly verbally hostile toward homosexuality and homosexuals don't seem to find much moral merit in avoiding the proudly gay. They'd rather engage and preach (with varying unpleasantness). Adjusting for hypocrisy, of course. And that is a huge adjustment, of course.

but you keep sidestepping the actual explanation of why one should feel any shame at all here

I don't think they should.

or how repression isn't actually harmful

Repression is something we do in little ways all the time. We repress rage, we repress individual sexual urges, we repress recklessness and cowardice. Repression certainly can be harmful. So can indulgence. You're looking for me to prove that repression isn't harmful. I respond first that I can't prove a negative. I respond a little more usefully that there are surely positives and negatives in every repression; sometimes they're overwhelmingly positive or negative, and other times it's more of a gray area.

You're trying to prove that gay sexual repression is never a valid option; the literal reading of that statement is silly and already refuted by those who abstain for a lifetime.

The more charitable reading you adopt, that went something like "most people can't abstain", still means that most people can't live without sex. That's STILL pretty much unfalsifiable and it STILL just looks silly, because you're saying that most people would become psychologically unfulfilled messes who wouldn't be able to find satisfaction in any of the million other facets of life that don't involve sex.

You're massively overselling the negatives. You're all but ignoring the 'illusory' positives. Sex isn't everything.

you can look to any number of people who've had to hide in the closet for the same thing

Okay.

Nope, you're wrong, I did just fine. And as I've said before, I'm not in your extreme minority asexual range. Sex isn't everything.

This is just dodging answering a question you don't like due to straw-grasping minutiae. You yourself acknowledge that verbal and physical abuse are, in fact, real things, so my question stands: Is that kind of abuse somehow not worth consideration as long as the abused person can still function in society, as long as they don't lash out?

It's dodging a question that is irrelevant to the conversation, because we aren't dealing with abuse scenarios. I'll give you what, due to our dueling definitions, is a meaningless answer: Abuse is always worth consideration and abuse is always wrong.

That's rather impossible, especially considering "moral aversion to homosexual activity" is pretty much a textbook example of bigotry that's attempting to wrap itself up in the trappings of acceptance.

Your textbook sucks. This right here is the central divide between us: what bigotry means.

Assigning some kind of negative value to gay sex without doing the same for straight sex is extremely arbitrary, bigoted, and in the end there's absolutely no good reason to do that.

It's certainly not arbitrary. The writer of Leviticus might've been entirely arbitrary, but now that it's very popularly considered a holy book, the belief is less excitingly just wrong.

No good reason? Yeah, true. Sometimes you're born into a context where a lot of apparently good reasons cloud your vision, though.

Bigoted? No. That does not follow.

Bigotry involves hatred and intolerance. Those are qualities in the commonly accepted definitions and the qualities evoked by use of the word.

Disapproval of gay sex does not require hatred.

Disapproval of gay sex does not require intolerance.

It is possible to hate gay sex and know and love gay people.

It is possible to hate gay sex and interact with gay people in a friendly, daily, and genuine manner.

Your use of the word here only works when you expand the term to meaninglessness. Intentionally or not, you're using the word deceptively. Call my friend Josh a bigot and you may be correct by your own standard. But an outside observer would take away that he is hateful or aloof or sure of his own superiority and none of these are correct. He might just more safely take away that Josh is preachy about the topic or that he will casually declare his opinion on the matter and he will still be wrong.

You'll still have deceived. Get a new textbook.

'Anti-gay' still has the problems of negative connotations which may or may not apply, but it has the benefit of being technically correct. It would be a step up from your gross misapplication of 'bigotry'.