Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Acim]

All words have power. Which is determined by the usage.

No words have power except for the value that the user/reader gives to them.

How about by explaining to me what part of having a specific sexual attraction determining whether or not you like to sleep with a person with a dick is mild bigotry?

I strongly believe I already have. But I will again.

As a matter of preference, that goes unexpressed, the attraction that follows logically from that preference is not bigotry. Expressing a refusal to DATE does equal a mild form of bigotry. Asserting that a DATE will automatically result in sexual intercourse where genitals will be touched, in all cases of a date/dating, is tackling another matter which this thread's participants are seemingly hung up on and which only pertain to the sexual orientation, not the CHOICE to date, or not date, a person. In the case of OP and what I strongly believe is at stake with this thread is the refusal to date an entire group of people based on one characteristic trait. If I refuse a particular date with a person who happens to be white, that by itself might be impossible or very challenging to show how it is bigotry. If I express a refusal to date all white people, I am curious how people in this thread view that in relation to bigotry. Seems if I come back and say, I would be friends with them, and work along side of them, but because of my 'preferences' I refuse to date any white person, and is not in any way, shape or form an example of bigotry.

 

[Buttercup]

No words have power except for the value that the user/reader gives to them.



I strongly believe I already have. But I will again.

As a matter of preference, that goes unexpressed, the attraction that follows logically from that preference is not bigotry. Expressing a refusal to DATE does equal a mild form of bigotry. Asserting that a DATE will automatically result in sexual intercourse where genitals will be touched, in all cases of a date/dating, is tackling another matter which this thread's participants are seemingly hung up on and which only pertain to the sexual orientation, not the CHOICE to date, or not date, a person. In the case of OP and what I strongly believe is at stake with this thread is the refusal to date an entire group of people based on one characteristic trait. If I refuse a particular date with a person who happens to be white, that by itself might be impossible or very challenging to show how it is bigotry. If I express a refusal to date all white people, I am curious how people in this thread view that in relation to bigotry. Seems if I come back and say, I would be friends with them, and work along side of them, but because of my 'preferences' I refuse to date any white person, and is not in any way, shape or form an example of bigotry.

I'd like to know how you equivocate genitals with racial discrimination?

First you say dating choices are preferential and/or attraction oriented.
Then, you pull back and say not dating a trans person based on preference is bigotry and equal to racial discrimination.
Which is it?

 

[Acim]

Lying to a person who you intend to date/sleep with, which includes withholding information, is unethical to do. It doesn't matter if it's lying about being STI free, being penis free or even that you're looking for a one night stand but pretend to want a serious relationship. That is a ****ty thing to do to a person. This expectation of being honest applies to EVERYONE. It IS normal in this day and age to answer questions pertaining to all sorts of.....err grey areas in life, shall we say?

I find this equivocation of date/sleep with to be most interesting. I'm wondering if celibate people could go on dates without ever making it known upfront that they have chosen celibacy? If someone felt attracted to a person that has chosen celibacy, and said, "would you be interested in going to dinner with me and catching Batman vs. Superman?" Would this person have to blurt out at this time, "I'm celibate!" Or would it be better to wait a little bit later like during an excruciatingly boring part of the movie, announce their celibacy, understanding that the only logical result of this evenings events are that they are going to sleep with each other?

I also find it interesting because I would think lots of people would be withholding lots of information on a wide array of things during a date. Seems like one would have to date for decades before sleeping together could occur, otherwise a partner could later claim that information was withheld from them when they first slept together. Many guys (not all of them) lie about their piggish tendencies and put on a good game face in order to get into bed with a partner. Lot of withholding of information there. May even manage to withhold that information up to, "I do" and perhaps later. I'm thinking the other partner may have not said, "I do," had that person not withheld that information. With every partner I've ever dated, and not stayed with over the long term, the break up seemed to have something to do with not being completely upfront with certain information. Because of my desire and what I fully believe to be mutual consenting desire to sleep together, I'm sure as heck glad this wasn't a bizarre standard which could of precluded us from sleeping with each other. But now I feel so unethical about all that information I withheld about me, my life and past experiences before we slept together. Suddenly, celibacy makes a lot more sense if this is the ethical norm.

Not to mention that one might actually be emotionally or even psychologically hurt by sleeping with a transgender unknowingly. They might feel extreme guilt if they are very religious and believe they have committed a grave sin in the eyes of whatever Deity they pray to. They might feel internalized homophobia and ashamed of themselves. So, while sleeping with a transsexual might not cause physical harm to anyone, it does put some people at risk of other things. What if they've been brainwashed by the Ex Gay crap and experience severe self loathing afterwards? The shame and guilt said person would be taught to feel would put them at risk of other psychological issues. Now, okay you could say that that's all on them. And I'd agree. But it's still a potential consequence nonetheless.

Agree it is a potential consequence. This would fit within the transphobic aspect of what OP was getting at. Like bigotry, transphobia isn't inherently all bad. Might have that sort of 'power' for some people to assert it as 'all bad, all the time,' but could also serve as a form of protection from which one would be saved levels of extreme discomfort based on the CHOICES they might make if those things did not exist. Their refusal to be with, work with, shower with, sleep with, eat with the group of people they are intolerant towards could be considered a self defense mechanism.

No one is saying you have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating someone. But most people prefer to know exactly what type of person they are dating. Whether they're into BDSM or LARPING or even if they have no genitalia. A relationship/dating involves mutual consent. Consent can't be obtained if the person is not fully aware of exactly what they're entering into.

Being upfront with one's preferences or any issues before having sex is vastly preferable than to be shocked by some revelation of something later down the line. Whatever revelation that may be.

I don't believe, nor find, you can have it both ways. You can't say "no one is saying you have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating" AND say "Lying to a person who you intend to date/sleep with, which includes withholding information, is unethical to do," without this being diametrically opposed trains of thought. As this may be a matter of further debate, I'll be keenly interested in rebuttals to this.

If you (a presumably heterosexual male - HM) are attracted to a person who is a trans woman (TW), then who is that on? What does that attraction actually mean? Whatever it means, must the other person (trans woman) speak with complete openness about whom they are for you to feel comfortable for whatever next steps you may wish to take? I.E. - HM wants to ask TW "will you go out to dinner and a movie with me?" And TW is to understand that as, "they obviously want to touch my genitals and is the only rational way to understand that question, therefore I need to talk at great length right now about who I am, and how I came to be standing in this spot today before they met me?" Or would a simple response of, "Yes, I would like to go to dinner and a movie with you" be okay? Ethical? Once that yes response is given and they go out on this activity which might be called a date, would HM, who is presumably uncomfortable with dating people who have penises, have sufficient reason to blame the other person who has a penis, but withheld that information? If yes, please explain that. Cause, the way OP has set things up, there exists a refusal to date females with penises. But apparently, it is the females with penises who are entirely to blame for withholding information and the person (HM) holding the bigoted position, not so much. That information is okay to be withheld indefinitely. Cause, ya know, that's all fine and normal. Really just a matter of preferences.

 

[Acim]

OK--regarding the Opening Post:

This is about personal life choices and preferences. These choices are within the realm of the individual to decide and define these preferences.

Some areas of personal life preferences:

• gender identity
• leisure time activity preferences
• food preferences
• leisure time clothing preferences
• dating preferences
• individual sexual preferences
• partnership preferences
• cultural interests
• personal possessions preferences

As long as the personal preferences do no harm to another and don't interfere with another person's right to hold their own personal life preferences or violate health codes or other laws, then those individual preferences should be recognized as valid to the person choosing them. Being intolerant of another person's valid personal preference is bigotry.

Following these premises:

• not tolerating another's choice of gender (not biological sex) identity would be bigotry, as this falls with the realm of valid personal life preference.
• not wanting to date a woman with a penis is not bigotry, as it falls within the realm of valid individual and personal sexual preferences.
• not tolerating another's choice of not wanting to have sex with a woman who has a penis would be bigotry, as it is intolerance of another's valid personal life preference.

Please feel free to critique this for logical and ideological inconsistencies.

The latter one, is one that I don't see how it enters into dispute of this thread. If you claim non consent, then where would be the counter argument as it relates to this thread?

The other one is the thrust of this thread. Again, I would rephrase that, in light of OP, as 'refusal to date women with penises' and then discuss whether or not it is bigotry. What if it were, "refusal to share bathroom?" Or "refusal to shower with?" Or "refusal to work along side of?" And so on and so forth. Are all those 'not bigotry?' The personal preference of refusing to shower with, would do no harm to another person if we isolate it down to 2 individuals who have different 'preferences.' But if whole groups of people say, 'all heterosexual males' and 'all trans women' should never have to shower together, work together, date together, then perhaps we could see a (societal) problem? While that sort of issue as it impacts all of society may not be found in OP (or it may), I do think it is pertinent to the discussion of bigotry.

Previously in this thread, I responded to a post that showed how actual bigotry (the ones we all seem to agree on) could also be rephrased as a 'matter of preferences.' I'm willing to do that again. Admittedly, some forms that people come up with are going to be more challenging for me to do this with than others. The ones where it is one person in relation to one other person, I don't think would be so challenging. The ones where it is a whole group of people receiving intolerance from one or more people, would be more challenging. But I feel given the rhetoric of this thread, I'd be able to do it in a way that is logically consistent with what others are saying is 'not bigotry.'

 

[4consideration]

I don't believe, nor find, you can have it both ways. You can't say "no one is saying you have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating" AND say "Lying to a person who you intend to date/sleep with, which includes withholding information, is unethical to do," without this being diametrically opposed trains of thought. As this may be a matter of further debate, I'll be keenly interested in rebuttals to this.

I do not believe these to be diametrically opposed trains of thought.

"One does not have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating" stands alone.

There is no contradiction with also believing this to be true: Intentionally withholding information from a person when you have reason to believe that information may alter their decision to have sex with you is material misrepresentation, which is usually considered as a form of lying. Withholding information that is not "material" (relative to the decision making process) is not considered a form of lying -- because it is considered information that would not be expected to be part of the decision making process.

 

[Acim]

I'd like to know how you equivocate genitals with racial discrimination?

Both are topics that are subject to varying degrees of bigotry, or intolerance by individual(s) towards a whole group of other people.

First you say dating choices are preferential and/or attraction oriented.
Then, you pull back and say not dating a trans person based on preference is bigotry and equal to racial discrimination.
Which is it?

Perhaps you could quote where I've said these things?

 

[Acim]

I do not believe these to be diametrically opposed trains of thought.

"One does not have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating" stands alone.

There is no contradiction with also believing this to be true. "Intentionally withholding information from a person when you have reason to believe that information may alter their decision to have sex with you is material misrepresentation, which is usually considered as a form of lying. Withholding information that is not "material" (relative to the decision making process) is not considered a form of lying -- because it is considered information that would not be expected to be part of the decision making process.

You changed the goalposts. Would you like for me to respond to your new goalpost or to the previous one in demonstrating the opposed train of thoughts?

 

[Buttercup]

Perhaps you could quote where I've said these things?

You said it in your very first sentence: "As a matter of preference, that goes unexpressed, the attraction that follows logically from that preference is not bigotry. Expressing a refusal to DATE does equal a mild form of bigotry."

Those two sentences seem in conflict with each other. Either you allow preference or you don't.

Personally, I don't think refusing to date a person with the same genitals as you is in any way, bigotry.

 

[4consideration]

You changed the goalposts. Would you like for me to respond to your new goalpost or to the previous one in demonstrating the opposed train of thoughts?

What? I'd like for you to make sense. Please give it a shot.

edit: Why not just respond to both things you are referring to here, since I think I'm answering the point in your post, and you are asserting I'm doing something different?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In some ideal future, or some alternate universe, everyone would be completely open and honest about their intents, and there would be no major consequences of revealing history/tendencies/current conditions, etc.

Imagine if you will a world in which a person would ask another out this way:

"Hey, you want to get dinner and a movie tonight, because I like you and I'm hoping that if we really hit it off we can end the evening with some sack time because I'm a guy and you're a girl."

Or, perhaps,

"Hey, want to get dinner (because I like to eat dinner, and don't mind doing that with other people) and see that new movie (because I want to see it and maybe you do, too), and I'm really not looking for sex tonight."

or, perhaps,

"Hey, I'd really like to get some sack time with you tonight, because I'm a guy with dangling body parts, and I think you're cute and assume you're a girl with the corresponding genital arrangement! Want to have dinner and see a movie first, to see how we get along?"

To which the other person would be able to respond in a variety of appropriate manners--

For any of the propositions: "Love dinner and a movie. Just so you know, I don't have sex on the first date, ever."

or, for the first and third,
"Love to! Just so you know, I'm a pre-surgery trans, so I don't have a vagina."

To which the proposer could then respond, "Oh! Well, let's have dinner and the movie and talk about when you're having your surgery!"

Or some other polite and understanding response. Even, "Oh, thank you for letting me know; it was really about the sex and I'm not interested because of that. Maybe later."

Other scenarios for other arrangements, such as the pre-surgery trans woman asking a man out on a date, can also be imagined.

But yeah, I don't think that happens very often today, and people's reactions are often not positive.

At work I've seen several situations in the last couple of years where someone is transitioning, and some people are having difficulties with it. I don't see it myself, except it did come as a shock because someone I didn't work with or see very often (like twice a semester) one time was a man and the next a woman--because it was kept quiet because people react so badly, it made for a somewhat embarrassing moment...believe me, Mike as Mike and Mike as Michele were two very different people in behavior and appearance...but once I was told what was going on, I had no problem with the situation at all. I have participated in the celebration of the coming out of gay and bi friends, and I think such a transition should be celebrated as well. I guess I'm out of the ordinary in that regard...

 

[Acim]

You said it in your very first sentence: "As a matter of preference, that goes unexpressed, the attraction that follows logically from that preference is not bigotry. Expressing a refusal to DATE does equal a mild form of bigotry."

Those two sentences seem in conflict with each other. Either you allow preference or you don't.

The preference FOR is not an expression of a refusal AGAINST. It is the expression that represents the (degree of) bigotry.

Personally, I don't think refusing to date a person with the same genitals as you is in any way, bigotry.

That's fine. I don't think the people who refuse to tolerate things that go against their preferences view it as bigotry either. If a person prefers not to work along side any/all Jewish people, I'm guessing they phrase it to themselves and like minded people as a reasonable preference, and not something that is a bigoted judgment. I'm sure they could mitigate such language with notions of, "Jewish people are still people and deserve all rights granted to them. I'm just stating a personal preference."

 

[crossfire]

I find this equivocation of date/sleep with to be most interesting. I'm wondering if celibate people could go on dates without ever making it known upfront that they have chosen celibacy? If someone felt attracted to a person that has chosen celibacy, and said, "would you be interested in going to dinner with me and catching Batman vs. Superman?" Would this person have to blurt out at this time, "I'm celibate!" Or would it be better to wait a little bit later like during an excruciatingly boring part of the movie, announce their celibacy, understanding that the only logical result of this evenings events are that they are going to sleep with each other?

Being a voluntary celibate, I'm up front with that. I wouldn't go out with anyone without them knowing beforehand, and having given them a chance to back out.

 

[Buttercup]

The preference FOR is not an expression of a refusal AGAINST. It is the expression that represents the (degree of) bigotry.



That's fine. I don't think the people who refuse to tolerate things that go against their preferences view it as bigotry either. If a person prefers not to work along side any/all Jewish people, I'm guessing they phrase it to themselves and like minded people as a reasonable preference, and not something that is a bigoted judgment. I'm sure they could mitigate such language with notions of, "Jewish people are still people and deserve all rights granted to them. I'm just stating a personal preference."

If you're going to allow romantic preferences, you can't call it discrimination or bigotry in this case.

I may treat Nordic races with the same respect as other people but let's say my overall romantic and sexual preference is for Hispanics. Does that make me a racist?
I'm 5'9" tall. I prefer men taller than me. Am I discriminating or bigoted toward men that are shorter than me?

I've been arguing in this thread that the word 'bigot' and 'bigotry' is being thrown around too casually. Let's use that word when it's genuinely warranted.

 

[Acim]

What? I'd like for you to make sense. Please give it a shot.

edit: Why not just respond to both things you are referring to here, since I think I'm answering the point in your post, and you are asserting I'm doing something different?

You asserted something different than what I had stated was diametrically opposed. I responded originally to:
"Lying to a person who you intend to date/sleep with, which includes withholding information, is unethical to do."

You changed that assertion to:
"Intentionally withholding information from a person when you have reason to believe that information may alter their decision to have sex with you is material misrepresentation, which is usually considered as a form of lying. Withholding information that is not "material" (relative to the decision making process) is not considered a form of lying -- because it is considered information that would not be expected to be part of the decision making process."

The portion of: "when you have reason to believe that information may alter their decision to have sex with you is material misrepresentation.....withholding information that is not 'material' (relative to the decision making process) is not considered a form of lying" - is all information that was added to what I originally asserted as diametrically opposed to "No one is saying you have to fill out a freaking questionnaire every time you're dating someone." I said these are two trains of thoughts that are diametrically opposed. You expounded, greatly, on the first one (regarding withholding of information). If one were to expound on the other one, we might see that it wasn't actually a literal questionnaire that was being stated in that assertion. Not sure. But I do stand by the notion that you can't have it both ways. You can't have someone not fill out a questionnaire (might only be one question on that for all we know) and expect them to reveal / address / respond to matters which deal with your own list of questions / concerns on a date.

Not to mention that it seems to be jumping to conclusion that sex is inevitable as a result of this date, dating process. I think it is a possible result, but seems like everything is being framed around the notion that all dates will inevitably end up in sexual intercourse / genitals being touched, and therefore all information relevant to that must be shared. But no one is being suggested to address any questions that might be asked (i.e. fill out a questionnaire), just reveal it, and know all material things that could plausibly relate to the inevitable sexual encounter. Preferably do this before the dinner is ordered during the date. Better yet, do all this revealing when you first pick up the person for the date. That would be the best time to reveal all material things, cause it's possible by the time you get to the restaurant, you could already have had sexual intercourse in at least 3 different positions.

 

[Acim]

If you're going to allow romantic preferences, you can't call it discrimination or bigotry in this case.

I may treat Nordic races with the same respect as other people but let's say my overall romantic and sexual preference is for Hispanics. Does that make me a racist?
I'm 5'9" tall. I prefer men taller than me. Am I discriminating or bigoted toward men that are shorter than me?

I've been arguing in this thread that the word 'bigot' and 'bigotry' is being thrown around too casually. Let's use that word when it's genuinely warranted.

You're saying that a preference FOR something does not equate to bigotry. If you prefer to date Hispanics, then I do not see how this is bigotry. But if you prefer Hispanics, what would possibly compel you to state, "I refuse to date Nordic people?" What does this have to do with your preference for dating Hispanics?

 

[Buttercup]

You're saying that a preference FOR something does not equate to bigotry. If you prefer to date Hispanics, then I do not see how this is bigotry. But if you prefer Hispanics, what would possibly compel you to state, "I refuse to date Nordic people?" What does this have to do with your preference for dating Hispanics?

How does the refusal to date people with the same genitals equal bigotry? I've yet to hear a cogent argument in how that preference equates with bigotry.

A reminder (I posted this earlier)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

How I treat trans people determines whether I'm a bigot or not. My dating preferences do not.

 

[Buttercup]

@Acim. If I refuse to date women, does that make me a misogynist?

 

[Acim]

How does the refusal to date people with the same genitals equal bigotry? I've yet to hear a cogent argument in how that preference equates with bigotry.

The refusal part. Representative of an intolerance to date such people.

A reminder (I posted this earlier)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Defintion = a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Bold emphasis mine as I argue it pertains to the above situation. Refusing to accept dates with members of a particular group (females with penises) would appear to constitute bigotry under the 'especially' portion of the definition.

How I treat trans people determines whether I'm a bigot or not. My dating preferences do not.

What sorts of things occur on a date? Please list all possible activities that could occur during a date. Top examples thus far would be dinner and movie. Thus it would follow that you would refuse to go to a movie or eat a dinner with the people (whole group mind you) that you refuse to date.

How is this different than, 'refusal to shower with' or 'refusal to work with' or 'refusal to be around?' All these are matters of preference if side stepping the refusal part. I've had work relationships that resulted in sexual intercourse, and as I'm sure I'm not alone on this, then it would be 'smart' to not put myself in a position of working with someone knowing that genitals could at some point be touched. Whereas the reality is, no one holding these sort of refusal positions is being compelled to go and do these things with individuals. If I refuse to work with white people, but fully believe white people are people that deserve all rights granted to them, and deserve to enjoy life and do whatever it is they desire, then I'm not mistreating them in any way. I prefer to work with non-white people. I refuse to work with white people. Chances are pretty darn good, if left entirely up to me, I'll never have to work with a white person. So, how could that position possibly be seen as bigotry when I've framed it as a preference and made it clear that white people are people who deserve equal rights and a happy life? (All said hypothetically, as I - Acim - would have no issues working with white people. As long as they reveal their entire medical histories to me upfront, before we actually start working together.)

 

[Buttercup]

The refusal part. Representative of an intolerance to date such people.



Defintion = a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Bold emphasis mine as I argue it pertains to the above situation. Refusing to accept dates with members of a particular group (females with penises) would appear to constitute bigotry under the 'especially' portion of the definition.

I'm sorry. I'm done with our conversations. You're being ridiculous. I don't say that often.

 

[Acim]

@Acim. If I refuse to date women, does that make me a misogynist?

It would seem to indicate a prejudice against (all) women.