Comment on Anon thinks there is a bicurious double standard

• GeriatricGambino@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  So gay men should suck it up and give women a chance?

  …

  “If there’s a rational reason to reject someone, like […]or your sexual orientation is not compatible, then it’s fine rejecting them but not disliking or being repulsed by them.”

  Second paragraph, towards the end. So what else didn’t you bother to read / try to understand ?

  Are the sexual orientations of gay men and women compatible ? Did I imply that anywhere ?

  Most of attraction/unattraction is not rational. It is emotional. It is a visceral feeling that doesn’t care about logic.

  I, personally, don’t like mint chocolate. When I put it in my mouth, I feel a visceral feeling of disgust, and spit it out. There is no logic behind this - it is just what I like and don’t like.

  We’re not talking about food, were talking about people. If they’re not harming anyone, they deserve to be treated with respect, as equals. Treating people with respect includes overcoming any prejudice you may have internalised growing up. Also having a visceral reaction, not an excuse. Visceral reactions can be questioned, and their causes deconstructed. It is possible to grow up as a person even as adult. Racism is visceral reaction, and it still wrong. At least in the reality of moral objectivism that I live in.

  But I am curious, do some groups of people give you a “visceral feeling of disgust” like mint chocolate gives you ? What groups of people would those be ?

  I also provided examples of being turned off by people who are shy, dumb, or poor. Again, these are not logical reasonings, but visceral responses to an individual and their traits.

  Yeah, and you can choose whomever you like as a partner, but repulsion for an entire group of people not doing any harm like poor people or shy people, is the realm of irrational hatred or fear, and that’s never ok. Or are you saying it’s ok or normal being viscerally repulsed by poor or shy people ?

  Again visceral feeling are not an excuse, you’re have higher reasoning, and are supposed to at least try to understand and control your feelings if you want to treat other people fairly. Otherwise there’s no sense of accountability for your actions, you just go by pretending you’re a mere vessel to your emotions, and stay indifferent to how your behaviour affects other people.

  You’re demonizing all women who like straight guys but are turned off by bi guys by calling them biphobic.

  If the only thing turning off a woman in a man is that he is bisexual then yeah, that’s what being prejudiced is. Same guy, same level of physical attractiveness, just as good a person, but straight : desirable. Exact same person but bisexual man : repulsive and less than a real man. That’s a biphobic woman, she doesn’t see bisexual men as worthy of the same level of respect as straight men, as equals to straight men.

  But I get the sense that your ethics and mine don’t mix.

  Objectivity is when something is true with no observer present. Morality requires an observer to decree what is right and wrong. This is why we have many philosophical schools of ethics, but only one school of physics (except at the very edge of research).

  Look. I’m not a philosopher or a historian of Ideas, so my knowledge of moral relativism and moral objectivism or universalism, is at a highschool level, so I think what I’m saying and how I’m saying is perfectly understandable in every day language without resorting to philosophical semantics (and frankly I don’t even know why you brought up physics in a story about social issues).

  In my stance of moral objectivism, I hold my ex accountable for her prejudice against bisexual and gay men, because it’s a stance where seeing bisexual men as inferior and repulsive is wrong regardless of your personal history, culture and upbringing, since being a bisexual man does no harm to anyone and if that bothers you you should get a life.

  In your stance of what I see as moral relativism, it’s unfair to hold my ex accountable for her prejudice because the context of her “visceral feeling of disgust” is what is truly important, and she’s just unjustly misunderstood.

  Those two stances are not compatible.

  source

  • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    your sexual orientation is not compatible, then it’s fine rejecting them but not disliking or being repulsed by them.”

    I mean, I’m referring to sexual repulsion. This is typically what people are referring to when they talk about having a preference against some person or other. It manifests as a visceral negative reaction, very similar to what one might feel if they think about eating something they find gross. A gay man would find the idea of sleeping with a woman repulsive. He can still treat women with respect. In the same way, a woman can find the idea of sleeping with a bi guy repulsive, and can still treat bi men with respect. This is an incompatibility in sexual orientation.

    Same guy, same level of physical attractiveness, just as good a person, but straight : desirable. Exact same person but bisexual man : repulsive and less than a real man

    I could just as easily swap in what kind of shoes the guy wears, the guy’s political affiliation, the accent the guy has, the way he has chosen to style his hair, or literally anything else.

    But I am curious, do some groups of people give you a “visceral feeling of disgust” like mint chocolate gives you ? What groups of people would those be ?

    Certainly. I’m straight. The idea of sleeping with another man gives me a visceral feeling of disgust. This is fine. I am completely comfortable admitting this, because this is my sexual preference.

    Or are you saying it’s ok or normal being viscerally repulsed by poor or shy people?

    It is 100% okay to feel whatever feelings one feels. If the thought of sleeping with someone who is poor or shy is repulsive to you, then that is fine. You don’t have to sleep with them.

    and frankly I don’t even know why you brought up physics in a story about social issues

    Because I don’t think you know what the word “objective” means.

    The Aztecs thought it was right to sacrifice children to the gods by cutting their hearts out. We don’t. Moral relativism says that both of these points of view are equally valid in their respective cultures. I happen to think that this is more or less the correct point of view, since any kind of objective morality is literally impossible because all morality is is values, and values are pure subjectivity. But that’s an academic distinction.

    My point fits squarely within good ol’ fashioned liberal western ethics, which you identified as “does no harm to anyone”.

    Being sexually repulsed by bisexual men, and expressing this preference by simply not sleeping with them harms no one.

    source

    • GeriatricGambino@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I could give a detailed answer like I did till now but why bother.

      No to all you’ve just said.

      Also moral relativism and nihilism is edgelord garbage, I thought so when I was a highschooler and I always will. You can and you should have some universalism regarding morals. You shouldn’t fuck children, no matter the culture or time in history. Pain is also universal and so is the evil of inflicting it for pleasure or callousness. I could go on but you and I have nothing to say to each other.

      source

      • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Sounds like you’ve realized I’m right but just don’t want to admit it.

        source
• Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Goddamn you’re dumb

  source