Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says

[Rev. Rye]

If the past history of the Y isn't enough for you, look into present-day nudist/naturist resorts or organizations. The funny thing is that, once you get past the fact that everyone's naked, the activities there are almost aggressively sexless (And, yes, this was disappointing for a teenaged Reverend to find out.) There are a few exceptions, but, naturally, they're rare.

Or, indeed, you can look at places like the Netherlands. Go to any beach, there's a nudist section. Go to the park (or a college campus, or even an apartment complex where you can see balconies) on a sunny day, women are sunbathing topless. Turn on the TV, if there's nudity, it will be uncensored (except on the Evangelical channel and maybe a few others.) It's common enough in films that nude scenes (at least non-sexual nude scenes) don't even factor into the ratings system. So, a film could include lots of nudity, but if it's non-sexual, it could still meet the standards equivalent to a G rating.

Funny thing, this video about Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers by a film YouTuber I've been following for over a decade also goes into quite a bit of detail about how Dutch culture is open to nudity in ways that can alarm Americans (particularly past the 30 minute mark):



The scene where everybody was showering together in that movie? It wasn't there to titillate audiences. It was there because the director is from a culture where that sort of thing is no big deal (Hell, he even stripped off himself when the time came to film it.)

[Angrboda]

Now you're just making up shit left and right. You've gone from being tiresome and lame to an outright dishonest twat.

And you still haven't answered what your thoughts on Google have to do with anything. I'm guessing we're not going to ever know.

This isn’t my first rodeo, I know this game you’re trying to play.  You’ll ask for citation after citation and arbitrarily dismiss each one because you do not like what they prove.  It’s an intellectually lazy game that wastes everyone else’s time.  It's interesting that you resort to using a term for a vagina as a means of demeaning someone.  I learned in my unconscious bias training at work that that means you have a prejudice against women or it’s a form of self-loathing if you are a woman.  Attack me all you want, does not offend me.  The fact you have not asked for a citation to support the dozens of assertions made on here by people who you agree with demonstrates you’re not a fair-minded individual and therefore are owed nothing from me.  If you have to play a game with two different sets of rules, then you’re not very good at the game you play

I notice you clipped the part that showed you were wrong. And since I didn't arbitrarily dismiss the one example you gave, your implying that you have reason to believe I would do likewise with other citations is groundless. If this isn't your first rodeo then you should also know that people who bring claims without evidence to back them up and then post a bunch of crap explaining away their failure to provide evidence are not credible and their claims can be summarily dismissed. And your whataboutism concerning my behavior concerning other people's failure to support their claims is just additional evidence that you are arguing in bad faith. You've made claims you can't back up and now you've made several accusations against me which you have no evidence for either. If you can't provide evidence for the things you claim, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Citation needed.  You think the PDF document is the actual training?  You’re funny.

I'm not referring to the pdf document. Try again 

Stop whining, you can read.  You provided one case, not impressed.

I think you’re getting me confused with the people on here condoning adult males showering with little girls.  

So you confuse whining with facts. That explains a lot  

Thank God you’re in the minority on this stuff.  Most people condemn child abuse, even if it’s committed by someone who says they’re trans.  

The good thing the thing in question isn't child abuse 

Women’s locker rooms were never intended to have biological males showering in them, hence the name, "Women's Locker Room".

The purpose of a looker room is so people can get dressed and store shit. The function is the same.

Males exposing themselves to little girls is sexual assault.  At least in America it is.

Not in a place where people are already supposed to be naked 

The fact it is child abuse is a good enough objection for me.  Again, remove God from morality and you end up with people condoning the murder of babies and sexual abuse of little girls.

Accept it's not child abuse. So this whole objection is moot 

Baseless assertion, citation needed.

Your objection is irrelevant and thus ignored 

Nope, I brought up pedophilia and your mind immediately thought I was talking about trans people, sounds like projection to me.

Nah you brought up pedophiles because you're trying to imply transpeople are pedophiles and you seem obsessed with the subject...Very particular  

I need a citation that in American law free speech is limited when dealing with preferred pronouns, especially if the use of said pronouns violates someone’s religious convictions.  Good luck.

America's free speech laws also contain limits so bringing this up is irrelevant 

I am apparently far more of a skeptic than you are.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Please provide your extraordinary evidence that transmen are actually men.  “They say so”, is not even evidence much less extraordinary evidence.  “I say so”, is even less evidence.  Real bush league. 

Actually, they say so is evidence. You simply don't like it, And no one cares 

I’ll need a citation proving that a majority of atheists possess something remotely resembling a shared ethos and then a citation demonstrating that a majority of them agree with you.  Not just white atheists either, worldwide here.  

What you need in this instance is something i don't need to care about 

That’s because an adult biological male exposing themself to a minor is SEXUAL assault.  You’re the one condoning child abuse, not me.  Apparently, you think it’s ok to sexually assault a child as long as it’s in the shower or something.  Gross stuff.

It's sexual assault or abuse so this whole statement collapses on itself 

Very scientific of you, and an anorexic is really obese because they tell you they are?  A person’s beliefs and feelings have no bearing on their ontology, that’s basic rationality.  

False comparison and another nonsequitur and you might brush up on your epistemology 

One example of sexual assault is too many isn’t it? I’ll provide more when you follow your own rules and start providing citations for your claims above.  Fair is fair.  

One example of a biological man in a women's space is nothing. You don't have any more or you would already present it. Lastly, i don't demand from you. 

Nah, just expect some form of logical consistency from you all on here; I realize that’s a fool’s errand.  It is rather amusing to watch those who claim to be free and critical thinkers all parrot the same bad arguments without evidence simply because they are popular now.  “We believe in science, but men can get pregnant!”

You are free to believe this nonsense. But I'm afraid you are wrong  

Thanks for the reply, and giving it some thought.  How do we know who an actual transwoman is?  I am not sure appealing to past practice is all that morally relevant to this discussion.  

They said thier trans and there a women. That's all we need. 

You believe someone can be trans and then not be trans?  That does not seem to be the position of most trans people in the media. They’re claiming they were assigned the wrong gender at birth.

And this doesn't refute a damn thing  

This isn’t my first rodeo, I know this game you’re trying to play.  You’ll ask for citation after citation and arbitrarily dismiss each one because you do not like what they prove.  It’s an intellectually lazy game that wastes everyone else’s time.  It's interesting that you resort to using a term for a vagina as a means of demeaning someone.  I learned in my unconscious bias training at work that that means you have a prejudice against women or it’s a form of self-loathing if you are a woman.  Attack me all you want, does not offend me.  The fact you have not asked for a citation to support the dozens of assertions made on here by people who you agree with demonstrates you’re not a fair-minded individual and therefore are owed nothing from me.  If you have to play a game with two different sets of rules, then you’re not very good at the game you play 

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses 


So are you now done embarrassing yourself?

[The Architect Of Fate]

This isn’t my first rodeo, I know this game you’re trying to play.  You’ll ask for citation after citation and arbitrarily dismiss each one because you do not like what they prove.  It’s an intellectually lazy game that wastes everyone else’s time.  It's interesting that you resort to using a term for a vagina as a means of demeaning someone.  I learned in my unconscious bias training at work that that means you have a prejudice against women or it’s a form of self-loathing if you are a woman.  Attack me all you want, does not offend me.  The fact you have not asked for a citation to support the dozens of assertions made on here by people who you agree with demonstrates you’re not a fair-minded individual and therefore are owed nothing from me.  If you have to play a game with two different sets of rules, then you’re not very good at the game you play

I notice you clipped the part that showed you were wrong.  And since I didn't arbitrarily dismiss the one example you gave, your implying that you have reason to believe I would do likewise with other citations is groundless.  If this isn't your first rodeo then you should also know that people who bring claims without evidence to back them up and then post a bunch of crap explaining away their failure to provide evidence are not credible and their claims can be summarily dismissed.  And your whataboutism concerning my behavior concerning other people's failure to support their claims is just additional evidence that you are arguing in bad faith.  You've made claims you can't back up and now you've made several accusations against me which you have no evidence for either.  If you can't provide evidence for the things you claim, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

I'll admit though this idiot is certainly entertaining

[The Architect Of Fate]

If the past history of the Y isn't enough for you, look into present-day nudist/naturist resorts or organizations. The funny thing is that, once you get past the fact that everyone's naked, the activities there are almost aggressively sexless (And, yes, this was disappointing for a teenaged Reverend to find out.) There are a few exceptions, but, naturally, they're rare.

Or, indeed, you can look at places like the Netherlands. Go to any beach, there's a nudist section. Go to the park (or a college campus, or even an apartment complex where you can see balconies) on a sunny day, women are sunbathing topless. Turn on the TV, if there's nudity, it will be uncensored (except on the Evangelical channel and maybe a few others.) It's common enough in films that nude scenes (at least non-sexual nude scenes) don't even factor into the ratings system. So, a film could include lots of nudity, but if it's non-sexual, it could still meet the standards equivalent to a G rating.

Funny thing, this video about Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers by a film YouTuber I've been following for over a decade also goes into quite a bit of detail about how Dutch culture is open to nudity in ways that can alarm Americans (particularly past the 30 minute mark):



The scene where everybody was showering together in that movie? It wasn't there to titillate audiences. It was there because the director is from a culture where that sort of thing is no big deal (Hell, he even stripped off himself when the time came to film it.)

Americans are just hyper-puritanical when it comes to nudity. As long as no one trying to harm anybody else. Who the heck cares?

[Mister Agenda]

Homosexual behavior, in some form or another, is observed throughout the sexually reproducing animal kingdom. What, exactly, is your definition of “natural”?

I'd want to be careful here of the "naturalistic fallacy" -- "it's natural therefore it's good." That can be tricky.

Since I'm a romantic, I prefer the passionate declaration: "I don't care if it's against nature, I love you so much let's run away together!" 

And I wish them well.

This was more of a counter to a claim that it's not natural, therefore it's bad.

[Mister Agenda]

Speaking of;  Where exactly did AreWeThereYet defend the sexualization of children?

By defending little girls being forces to see penises.  That's sexualizing children.  It's wrong on the playground just as it is in the locker room.

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sorry for the tone, but it's hard to say this without sounding condescending. Maybe it's the word 'orientation' that confuses you. Orientation is about who you are attracted to. Just because we have words for women attracted to women and men attracted to men and so forth doesn't mean it's a change in orientation when your gender identity changes and who you are attracted to stays the same.

No apologies needed, you're not being condescending.  You believe that lesbians and straight men have the same sexual orientation? That is certainly not how the law defines that term.

I'm having trouble finding out how the law defines sexual orientation. Perhaps my google fu is weak. The impression I'm getting is that it vares by state and there is no official federal definition of sexual orientation. But as I said, it may be a problem with how I'm googling.

[Angrboda]

Perhaps we should ask the country's resident expert on person, woman, man, camera, tv.

[arewethereyet]

By defending little girls being forces to see penises.  That's sexualizing children.  It's wrong on the playground just as it is in the locker room.

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

Yeah, you can stop looking for where I said that.  You can even stop looking for where I implied that.

SW thinks that eight year old girls frequently shower in large groups where penii just wander around unattended.

He/She/They are a troll.  A rather boring one at that.  Combined with Winter's nonsense is all just so much babbling.