Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Acim]

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

Apology accepted.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

The 2nd paragraph is defeated by your own proffered definition.
One may "accept" members of a particular group, despite not wanting to boink (become physically intimate with) them.

Tell me....is there any group of people you wouldn't be willing to copulate with?
- Morbidly obese
- Ugly
- Scientologists
- Insane
- Retarded
- Same sex
- Lawyers
- Luddites

 

[McBell]

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.



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.)

Congratulations.
You have just rendered the word "bigot" useless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, there you go.
You're such a victim that you're willing to victimize others because you prioritize your ideology above others, and are happy to shove it down people's throats.

It's almost poetic.

Except that transsexuals are heavily discriminated against. According to society, it's shameful to be transsexual. We are "sexual deviants," we are "predators," and when I say "beat down," I mean it literally. Many states and many politicians (overwhelmingly Republican and Conservative Christians) do want to criminalize us being able to live as our identified sex through measures such as making it a crime to use the restroom of the sex we identify with/are living as/presenting to the world as. Many places make it very difficult, even impossible, to change any gender markers on any identifications until genital surgery is done (which presents a major obstacle for FtM), if they'll allow it all.
And, of course you think I'm victimizing others. You've probably never seen people viciously mocked over, you probably haven't realized we are a punch-line in mainstream media, you're probably unaware that anti-trans violence is increasing, you've never heard anyone recount how someone told them they should be beaten, someone should put a gun to their head, someone needs to kill them, and they shouldn't have to share the same air.
Very literally, "trans-panic" is a court defense that is legal in all states except California. That means is someone beats us or even kills us, they are legally allowed to launch a defense on how their discovering the person they beat and/or killed is trans caused them such a shock that they lost control. People can do that, and it sometimes works.
And if insisting society become more equitable and treat transsexuals better and accept us as we are, and to end discriminations, harassments, beatings, and killings, if that is my ideology being "shoved down people's throats," then so be it. We should just have to accept things as they are, because there are far too many of us that are unemployed and homeless.

 

[Acim]

The 2nd paragraph is defeated by your own proffered definition.

Where do you see that?

One may "accept" members of a particular group, despite not wanting to boink (become physically intimate with) them.

True. But would they go on dates, engage in dating activities with these same members? If no, for all possible dating activities, then what is meant by "acceptance?"

Couldn't a person that is a strong bigot, claim acceptance at some level and then say, "no not a bigot at all. I just provided an example of something they can do, away from me, and therefore I feel very accepting of them."

Tell me....is there any group of people you wouldn't be willing to copulate with?
- Morbidly obese
- Ugly
- Scientologists
- Insane
- Retarded
- Same sex
- Lawyers
- Luddites

Possible I would copulate with all of them. Probable I won't copulate with any of them any time soon. Might even refuse to date some of them. Would self identify that as a lack of acceptance or mild form of bigotry.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Dang. The Phobia is strong in this thread. Sadly, unsurprising.

Also, why are we collectively so concerned with what a penis is doing or not doing, and what people's reactions to a penis say about everything and anything?

Folks, sex is not always about the penis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where do you see that?

The definition only covers "accepting", not sexual relations.

True. But would they go on dates, engage in dating activities with these same members? If no, for all possible dating activities, then what is meant by "acceptance?"

Suppose.....
Person A accepts transsexuals as friends, workers, employers, etc, etc.
Person A dates person B.
Unbeknownst to A, B is transsexual.
This is a deal breaker for Person A because of a desire for biological procreation, or even a sexual phobia.
This doesn't make Person A a "bigot".

Couldn't a person that is a strong bigot, claim acceptance at some level and then say, "no not a bigot at all. I just provided an example of something they can do, away from me, and therefore I feel very accepting of them."

People can lie about anything.
But it doesn't really prove anything.

Possible I would copulate with all of them. Probable I won't copulate with any of them any time soon. Might even refuse to date some of them. Would self identify that as a lack of acceptance or mild form of bigotry.

I say it's not necessarily bigotry, even mildly so.
"Bigotry" would lie in how we treat people in aspects of life outside of mating activities.

 

[Buttercup]

Dang. The Phobia is strong in this thread. Sadly, unsurprising.

Also, why are we collectively so concerned with what a penis is doing or not doing, and what people's reactions to a penis say about everything and anything?

Folks, sex is not always about the penis.

Vagina has been mentioned numerous times.

 

[Revoltingest]

Vagina has been mentioned numerous times.

Really....this is a family friendly forum.
You should avoid such titillating words.
We should use "hoo hah" & "ding dong".
(That's what staff said they prefer.)

 

[4consideration]

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.

I think we're missing each other here. I was speaking to what I understood to be the intended meaning of the person that originally wrote those words. In following the conversation backwards, the statement below (I included a bit more of it for context) was a response to a statement that seemed to support it as being ok to withhold the information of being trans from someone one is having sex with, because it was not the same as STD's, which was also brought up as information that should be given upfront. My point is, there are some things that are considered a lie if they are important enough to the other person, and withheld so as to not affect that person's decision.

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 would add to that another point, that of being married. I think if a person is married they ought to be aware that it might really matter, and be devastating to a single person, to find out after the fact they slept with a married person. The point there is that I think it is just reasonable for a person to know there are some things about themselves that might be material to whether or not a person would decide to have sex with you. I know you are making the distinction about dates not necessarily involving sex, but the post you are quoting is definitely talking about sex, not dates with no sex.

I don't think it's moving the goal posts to represent the post as being related to sex, when it is.

Regarding the other post about having a questionnaire, of course there is no way to cover everything that may be important to a person on, or before, a date. Again, I'm talking about situations in which sex is expected as an eventuality, and I think it's important to be honest, and reveal what one might expect to be important to another person. I don't think a questionnaire is necessary, especially when there are a few key things about a person they are likely to know someone might want to know -- STDs, if one is a female with a penis, if one is married, etc. To intentionally withhold that information, implies for me, one believes the information may make the other person change their mind -- which does expose one to the possibility of rejection. I understand, and do not take the pain of rejection lightly. It does not make a person guilty of lying if they haven't thought of something that ends up being bothersome to the person, and failed to address it, but STDs, unexpected penises, and married status -- those are things I don't think a person needs a questionnaire to figure out should be revealed upfront.

I don't see why you think the quote about lying and a quote about a questionnaire are diametrically opposed. I see no opposition between them. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

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.

Well, I agree with you that all dates don't mean sex. I'm married, but when I was single they did not mean definite sex for me.

I am assuming we are not simply talking about friendships and socializing. I am assuming we are talking about dating with the expectation that it lead to sex, or a long-term relationship -- because of how it is presented in the OP. We could go off on a tangent about whether or not dating necessarily implies sex. For me it does not, but I am aware for many people it does. For the purpose of this conversation, there's been so much reference to sex, I'm speaking as though we are talking about dating that includes sex.

 

[Flankerl]

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

So Heterosexual women hate women.

Okay. That's not insane at all. Though I am not surprised.

 

[Buttercup]

Really....this is a family friendly forum.
You should avoid such titillating words.
We should use "hoo hah" & "ding dong".
(That's what staff said they prefer.)

I thought penis is a ding dong?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought penis is a ding dong?

Correct.
I thought it useful to mention both kinds of junk.
("Junk" is also the staff's prefered term for genitalia.)

 

[Buttercup]

Correct.
I thought it useful to mention both kinds of junk.
("Junk" is also the staff's prefered term for genitalia.)

penis, penis, penis!
vagina, vagina, vagina! Ha!

 

[McBell]

Really....this is a family friendly forum.
You should avoid such titillating words.
We should use "hoo hah" & "ding dong".
(That's what staff said they prefer.)

HA HA
you said tit...illating

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

penis, penis, penis!
vagina, vagina, vagina! Ha!

Buttercup!
I'm surprised!
I'm shocked!
I'm....interested!

 

[Buttercup]

Buttercup!
I'm surprised!
I'm shocked!
I'm....interested!

You'd better be interested in both of those or you're a bigot!

 

[Acim]

The definition only covers "accepting", not sexual relations.

And via OP, we are talking about dating, and not (only) sexual relations.

Suppose.....
Person A accepts transsexuals as friends, workers, employers, etc, etc.
Person A dates person B.
Unbeknownst to A, B is transsexual.
This is a deal breaker for Person A because of a desire for biological procreation, or even a sexual phobia.
This doesn't make Person A a "bigot".

Deal breaker meaning - no sexual relations, yes? But if accepting of as friends, they may still go out on 'dates' and do things that people do on dates, other than the sexual activities. Why would they do this? Because they actually ARE accepting of transsexual people and are open to the idea of dating them. But have a preference when it comes to sexual relations for people who do not have penises. They do not refuse dating, accepting dates (as your example clearly shows). And which is the rather significant wall that this thread is dealing with. How would you know??? You found yourself attracted to the person, and you go out on a date with them. All by your choice no? All based on an attraction. All plausibly conforming with your sexual orientation. Then a deal breaker occurs. I've experienced many of deal breakers myself when dating. Have certainly entertained notions going forward, for all future people I might date, as a result of the deal breakers I previously experienced. None of these deal breakers, or at least vast majority of them, had anything to do with my sexual orientation. I certainly could've claimed them as such, if I were into re-framing the issue in a different light, but chose to be more honest than that. Even after a deal breaker occurred in some cases, ruling out sexual intercourse, I still accepted the idea of dating (as friends), recognizing that sex as a possibility for that relationship was off the table.

I say it's not necessarily bigotry, even mildly so.
"Bigotry" would lie in how we treat people in aspects of life outside of mating activities.

And I say it is a mild form of bigotry because the lack of acceptance that would be included under all possible dating activities would be fairly substantial. If ONLY conceiving of dating as sexual intercourse where genitals will be touched and ONLY do things on an individual by individual basis, where some forms of dating would be seen as 'obviously permissible,' but the person reserves the right to reject sexual intercourse with particular individuals they may be dating, then I do not see it as bigotry. But refusing to accept or go on dates with entire group of people strikes me as degree of bigotry at work.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You'd better be interested in both of those or you're a bigot!

at least one of each...

 

[Buttercup]

at least one of each...

Nice!