An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

[Trippy]

Which means that 75%, quite a large majority, have already figured it out.

In the USA it's not terribly uncommon for 12-year-olds to already be having sex, so in our country that percentage is probably much higher.

In any case, they'll have it figured out by the time they're 14.

As far as I recall, the figures are from american studies and yes, you are right, the percentage undecided drops rapidly as gonadrache is approached. As to damage, one of the things identified as damaging was use of language such as husband and wife when discussing 'adult partnerships' as it introduces expectation and bias.

 

[Balerion]

And people differ quite a bit in what they consider "emotional or physical damage to people."

Do they? In what way? Could you give an example?

Because this whole discussion implicitly depends on precisely that discourse.

Pretending that the concept is so flexible it has no meaning only serves to kill the discussion.

No, she doesn't.

Actually, she does. And that's coming from me.

Your idea of "conversation" is chucking illogic grenades from behind a bush. Try participating.

No, we don't. What we have is not a discussion, but a few people in positions of power telling others what is supposedly right and what is wrong.

I don't know what "power telling" means, but if you don't like the nature of debate, then why are you here? Oh, right, to add such gems as this:

Ah, the power trip!

If only you'd actually believe that and act accordingly.

Lol! This coming from you!

Talking about yourself again?

There you go. You don't need me for this conversation. You have already figured out everything, you're now the Oracle and we all shall comply.

Teasing, baiting, adding nothing beside petty resentment and a superiority complex. Not to mention the :shrug: and emoticons you're so fond of. It begs the question: What are you doing here, wynn?

I think that what I'm talking about is not rocket science. So I see no need to go into much detail.

How about any detail? How about instead of just criticizing others, you actually support your criticisms with a competing idea?

It's not so much that homosexuality is about harming other people. It's about the homosexuals harming themselves. And "unsanitary practices" being the least concern in all this.

How, exactly, are homosexuals harming themselves? You list a "common problem" below, so what's the "uncommon" one you feel the need to single gay people out for?

The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process.

Of course, in our culture, we are raised to objectify ourselves and others this way, and to even feel good about it. So people typically see no problem with such objectification ... and psychotherapists earn big moneys on account of that.

How is sex objectification? In typical fashion, you've made a claim without supporting it. Pretend I'm an idiot and explain to me exactly how sex equates to objectification.

By talking down to Syne, assuming herself superior to him.

I can't fathom how you, of all people, could possibly get upset by someone talking down to someone else. 95% of your posts are blatantly condescending.

And, from what I can tell, no one is actually talking down to Syne. This is just another one of your victim tactics.

 

[spidergoat]

...The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process.

Of course, in our culture, we are raised to objectify ourselves and others this way, and to even feel good about it. So people typically see no problem with such objectification ... and psychotherapists earn big moneys on account of that.

That's... pretty fucked up, as if you can't have sex with someone without turning them into an object? If it weren't pleasurable no one would do it. Can't I have pleasure eating a meal with someone without objectifying them into a "food object"? What are you talking about?

 

[Syne]

There are many factors which contribute to that unfortunate statistic, not the least of which being the negative stigma attached to homosexuality. In any case, it's certainly not the gayness of men that makes HIV so prevalent among their numbers.

Since when does a good excuse pardon actual harm? No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC.

You misunderstand. "Right for me" as in my own judgement of what is right (in a meta-ethical moral objectivist sense), not as some personal preference.

And in a way, your preference also comes into play in who you are naturally attracted to.

Who said it did not? But you seem to have missed that I said "in my moral judgment" as opposed to simply a personal preference.

Nothing necessitates moral objectivism leading to discrimination or abuse.

Discrimination and abuse inevitably follow. We have a history where this occurs.

That is a hasty generalization that cannot be proven anything else. Even having a very great number of such anecdotal histories does not make it a foregone conclusion.

But you don't always. You have in the past made spurious allegations and stereotyped based solely on how you judge others. This is a natural course, we all do it. However when you approach another from a standpoint that what they and who they identify themselves as is wrong, then it is not always easy or even possible to monitor your reaction when your initial reaction is one of 'who they are is wrong'.

And I just said, "if I so choose". And it is a matter of "what they do", not "who they are".

And you are currently judging me by "your own personal beliefs and morals", often to the extent of seemingly demonizing me wholesale (you know, "judging in a very negative manner"). How is that any better/different? Yes, I understand you think it is right, just as I think my own moral judgement is right. And?

I am judging you based on my personal beliefs and morals - which stems that I don't think it is moral to judge someone based solely on their sexuality and declare said sexuality is not right. There is no basis for the belief that homosexuality is not right, or to believe that it is somehow wrong.

But you think it is right to judge someone solely for their opinion, whether that opinion causes any direct harm or not?

Not always equally.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/​

And why are they more affected?

Being gay is not the cause. Being homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) and not using condoms properly is the biggest issue. Even worse:

Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. ​

Do the excuses for harmful behavior pardon it? Oh, you have an excuse...well it is okay that you or others have been harmed then.

Passing the blame can lead to an infinite regress that only ends with no one to blame. If the social environment is at fault, then the individual you blame within that society is no less effected by it, and at best, you have only the mechanisms of social evolution to blame.

"The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person. The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex)"---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

Not in the US, according to the CDC:

Because:

In fact, if that kind of intercourse was only as risky as vaginal intercourse, researchers report, HIV cases among gay and bisexual men would shrink dramatically. It would go down even more, they added, if their rates of casual sex declined. - Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study​

It is trivial that "the majority" of all worldwide transmissions occur through heterosexual contact, as heterosexuals are the vast majority. But by the ratio of each orientation homosexuals are most at risk.

Or you could have simply quoted the rest of that wiki paragraph:

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person. The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex); however, the pattern of transmission varies significantly among countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men, with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Sexual​

So it seems. Sorry.

Then whose (mis)quote was that in James's post? I'm only asking because you've probably tracked it down already.

James attributed the quote correctly. Perhaps he edited the post since you saw it last.

And yet, you have offered no valid reason whatsoever for your so-called morality.

Keep yer shorts on.

Is disapproving of homosexuality and homosexual marriage spreading hate?

I don’t believe that you can justify an anti-gay attitude. It is a prejudicial attitude that arises from social conditions. Should the LGBT community abandon their own visions and plans for life in order to retain approval? Syne’s disapproval of homosexuality is not useful in any way. In fact, he’s being judgmental in ways that are harmful.

I don’t think you should have sex with that guy because he’s a dick. (helpful)

I don’t think you should have sex with a guy because he has a dick. (harmful)

End of story.

Opinions can only harm you if you allow them to. You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true. And I am not concerned with coddling anyone's self-doubt. Their own insecurities are their problem.

 

[spidergoat]

Since when does a good excuse pardon actual harm? No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC..

Yeah, that's a disease, it doesn't care what your sexual orientation is. Jesus Christ.

 

[Balerion]

Since when does a good excuse pardon actual harm? No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC.

Because the harm is not do to the gender of the participants, but the culture of those involved. It's the same reason AIDS is an epidemic in Africa. By that logic, would you say that blackness is to blame? That their culture is no excuse for their skin color? Of course not. Yet you have no qualms highlighting the gay male AIDS epidemic as if it's some mark against that particular (male-male sex) behavior.

I mean, have you even considered what you're implying?

 

[Syne]

Yeah, that's a disease, it doesn't care what your sexual orientation is. Jesus Christ.

Because the harm is not do to the gender of the participants, but the culture of those involved. It's the same reason AIDS is an epidemic in Africa. By that logic, would you say that blackness is to blame? That their culture is no excuse for their skin color? Of course not. Yet you have no qualms highlighting the gay male AIDS epidemic as if it's some mark against that particular (male-male sex) behavior.

I mean, have you even considered what you're implying?

Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study

 

[spidergoat]

Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study

Correction: not using condoms leaves gay men vulnerable to HIV. That doesn't contradict the fact that a disease is just a disease, there's no such thing as a gay disease. Maybe we should learn how to fight the disease and not the victims. Besides, all that implies is that we should be encouraging committed relationships and the use of condoms.

 

[Balerion]

Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study

And gay black men are most prone of all. Would you also suggest there's something about them, biologically, that makes them higher-risk than non-black gay men? Or would you concede that it has nothing to do with biology?

 

[Balerion]

That doesn't contradict the fact that a disease is just a disease, there's no such thing as a gay disease. Maybe we should learn how to fight the disease and not the victims.

Nor does it contradict the fact that the reason the gay male community is facing an AIDS epidemic is cultural, not biological.

I'm really not even sure what Syne is trying to get at here. Since he doesn't have the stomach to actually explain why he thinks homosexuality is wrong, I'm starting to wonder if this is the best he'll do--taking potshots from behind the fence, getting in as many digs as he can before he gets called on it.

 

[Bells]

Who said it did not? But you seem to have missed that I said "in my moral judgment" as opposed to simply a personal preference.

You have yet to explain why, in your moral judgement, homosexual is wrong.

That is a hasty generalization that cannot be proven anything else. Even having a very great number of such anecdotal histories does not make it a foregone conclusion.

History always repeats itself and you do directly act on your own moral judgements on this issue.

And I just said, "if I so choose". And it is a matter of "what they do", not "who they are".

Again, what is it that they do to warrant your "moral judgement"?

But you think it is right to judge someone solely for their opinion, whether that opinion causes any direct harm or not?

Opinion and education, or lack thereof can be changed. One's sexuality cannot.

Do you understand the difference?

If I judge your opinion, it is with the knowledge that one's opinion is not permanent. It can easily change with education and education and most importantly, empathy and compassion. One's sexuality is not something that one can change and judging someone based on their sexuality, based on who they are, is simply wrong.

Do the excuses for harmful behavior pardon it? Oh, you have an excuse...well it is okay that you or others have been harmed then.

What harmful behaviour?

Heterosexuals having unprotected sex is just as harmful. Why do you save your moral judgements for homosexuals?

Passing the blame can lead to an infinite regress that only ends with no one to blame. If the social environment is at fault, then the individual you blame within that society is no less effected by it, and at best, you have only the mechanisms of social evolution to blame.

Homosexuals are not to blame for how they are born, just as a person of colour is not to blame for how they are born. To blame them for something that is wholly out of their control is a basis of bigotry. To judge them for how they are born, for something that is wholly outside of their control, is bigotry.

Not in the US, according to the CDC:

Because:

In fact, if that kind of intercourse was only as risky as vaginal intercourse, researchers report, HIV cases among gay and bisexual men would shrink dramatically. It would go down even more, they added, if their rates of casual sex declined. - Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study​

It is trivial that "the majority" of all worldwide transmissions occur through heterosexual contact, as heterosexuals are the vast majority. But by the ratio of each orientation homosexuals are most at risk.

Oh please, can the excuses of why you have your moral judgements against homosexuals. You have declared that homosexuality is not right. You have yet to explain what makes it wrong.

Hiding behind HIV transmissions and pretending to care by using 'harm' as an excuse for your judging homosexuals for their homosexuality is not working for you.

Or you could have simply quoted the rest of that wiki paragraph:

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person. The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex); however, the pattern of transmission varies significantly among countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men, with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Sexual​

Yes, the most frequent mode of transmission is with sexual contact with an infected person without using protection. And I explained how and why some homosexual men do not use protection when having sex.

And as Spider has correctly pointed out what you clearly refuse to acknowledge is that AIDS/HIV is not caused by homosexuality. It is simply a disease.

Keep yer shorts on.

Then stop hiding and answer the question.

Opinions can only harm you if you allow them to. You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true. And I am not concerned with coddling anyone's self-doubt. Their own insecurities are their problem.

Is this why you were so offended when I called you a homophobe and commented on your homophobia?

 

[Trippy]

Not in the US, according to the CDC:

Because:

In fact, if that kind of intercourse was only as risky as vaginal intercourse, researchers report, HIV cases among gay and bisexual men would shrink dramatically. It would go down even more, they added, if their rates of casual sex declined. - Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study​

It is trivial that "the majority" of all worldwide transmissions occur through heterosexual contact, as heterosexuals are the vast majority. But by the ratio of each orientation homosexuals are most at risk.

From your source:

Previous research has shown that being on the receiving end of anal intercourse is equally risky whether you're a man or a woman. The risk was estimated at 1.4 percent per sex act with an infected person -- about 18 times more risky than male-to-female vaginal intercourse.​

It's not an issue of being gay, it's an issue of having anal sex regardless of whether or not you're gay, which, on the whole is a 'wellduh' moment...

There's a reason we use medical suppositories...

 

[Trippy]

From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.

Whilst Syne educates us about why homosexuality is morally wrong, I did a little digging into the article(s) that prompted the blog post Syne linked to.

There are some qoutes from the 'summary points for policy makers' I would like to share:

Current prevention tools could reduce new HIV infections in MSM substantially, but more and better tools will be needed to achieve an AIDS free generation for young MSM. Stigma, discrimination, and social and health care level homophobia continue to limit access and uptake to essential services from testing to treatment, and from condoms to
PrEP.

These realities are most clearly demonstrated among minority MSM in the U.S., where black MSM have much higher rates of HIV infection then other MSM, despite having lower individual risks for HIV. But black MSM also have lower rates of testing, health care access, health insurance, and successful HIV treatment—impacts seen at each step of the treatment cascade.

Studies of the life experiences of MSM and other sexual and gender minorities suggest that psychological distress and risk-taking behavior may result in part from early childhood experiences such as physical and emotional abuse by family, peers, and/or key community leaders (e.g. clergy).

In most parts of the world, restricted resources and legal barriers complicate delivery of HIV prevention to MSM. Policy changes to align resources with the magnitude of HIV epidemics among MSM, and to allow MSM to safely access medical care and prevention services, are urgently needed to create an enabling environment for prevention, and an adequately resourced prevention response.

Homophobia is the product of deeply ingrained views on gender roles, religion and national identity, and must be addressed at a systemic and structural level.

Legal equality is important, but not sufficient; it needs to be supported by real efforts to build acceptance of human diversity.

Exciting new possibilities for prevention are likely to be unavailable to many MSM, who in many parts of the world are stigmatized, persecuted and ignored.

Despite being less risky, Black MSM in the UK and the USA were more likely to be HIV positive than were other MSM. This paradox is partly explained by the finding that HIV-positive black MSM in each country were less likely to start HIV treatment than men of other races and ethnicities. U.S. HIV-positive black MSM were also less likely to have health insurance, have a high CD4 count, adhere to anti-retroviral treatment, or be virally suppressed than were other US HIV-positive MSM. These low rates of successful treatment for black MSM are driving new HIV infections in black MSM networks and communities.

Policies that criminalize homosexuality, notably in the Caribbean, are associated with increased prevalence of HIV infection in black MSM.

As of 2011 only 87 countries have reported prevalence of HIV in MSM. Data are most sparse for the Middle East and Africa, regions where criminal sanctions against same-sex behavior can make epidemiological assessments challenging. All countries should include MSM in epidemiologic tracking of HIV.

We lay out a strategy to greatly improve the response to HIV among MSM globally. For this strategy we looked at inputs like epidemiology, social settings, and clinical factors. Then we suggest a four part approach:

1. Overcome barriers to prevention, treatment and care through decriminalization, and targeted programs to reduce homophobia
2. Expand access to evidence based services, bringing to scale prevention and treatment programs with evidence of efficacy
3. Develop and implement a coordinated donor and recipient plan to expand services strategically to maximize the impact of funding.
4. Set targets, measure progress and hold stakeholders accountable for progress.​

​

Source
Full Versions​

Astute observers may notice some recurring themes, like, for example:
Peoples moral judgements on MSM are part of the problem.
People passing laws based on their moral judgement that MSM is wrong are part of the problem.
The first steps to solving the problem are legal equality and acceptance..

 

[Balerion]

Trippy, Syne was obviously grabbed by the misleading headline and failed to actually read the article.

This is what I was talking about when I said it was a cultural issue. Discrimination forcing gay men into anonymous promiscuity certainly is one of those cultural issues. So is gay denial. The whole "on the down low" gay-but-not-gay lifestyle of black urban men stems from the emasculation and dehumanization of gay men in that culture, and includes excuses for why condoms are a no-no.

I have to say, at this point I am a bit surprised the newest mod hasn't taken the opportunity to explain himself. He was the one who said he'd be happy to discuss it in a new thread--which is why I made this one--yet he's balking.

I think if he plans on being a moderator here, he should have to explain himself. Assuage our fears that we're being moderated by a homophobe.

 

[Trippy]

I have some supporting literature I can provide when I get home.

As promised:

Rethinking Puberty: The development of Sexual Attraction

Sexual Orientation and Adolescents

 

[wynn]

I don’t believe that you can justify an anti-gay attitude.

But an anti-anti-gay attitude is justifiable, and useful?

Syne’s disapproval of homosexuality is not useful in any way.

It certainly appears to be useful to him.

In fact, he’s being judgmental in ways that are harmful.

So you feel harmed by Syne's attitudes here? How?

Or is that you place all who don't approve of homosexuality into the same group, assuming that they are all the same, doing the exact same things? And that as such, people like Syne go to anti-gay conventions and burn down the houses of gays etc.?

Per you, is it that -

Not approving of homosexuality = going on anti-gay conventions + refusing to do business with gays + posting hate-speech propaganda on the internet + etc.

?

 

[wynn]

as if you can't have sex with someone without turning them into an object?

There is one kind of sex that is purportedly beyond such objectification, namely tantric sex. But actual tantric sex requires very advanced practitioners who don't objectify (and they don't do it for pleasure or love either; doing so would automatically disqualify them).

If it weren't pleasurable no one would do it.

Shooting heroin in one's veins is pleasurable too. For some people, sometimes. Doesn't mean that shooting heroin up one's veins is inherently pleasurable.

What are you talking about?

A particular reduction of scope of what is to be considered a person's identity.

All I see in your response to him is you being judgmental, talking down to him and you dodging the subject...

And that's what you see ... And you are taking no responsiblity for what you are seeing - you simply blame it on others.

So, feeling pleasure and joy and feelings of love and desire has no higher purpose?

What higher purpose do you see to those? Liberation from suffering?
Having sex doesn't even exempt people from having to pay taxes nor from being subject to traffic laws, what to speak of anything else.

Syne is a big boy. He can take being questioned and talked back to. You don't need to protect him from the 'big bad girls' participating in this thread. He has expressed some worrying views and he is being questioned about said views. Contrary to what you may feel, this is acceptable in society. We aren't meant to simply close our eyes and think of England in such discussions.

I'm having a laff, sort of, seeing how you are creating your own suffering here. You express total certainty about things (e.g. "Homosexuality is not immoral"), and then when someone disagrees with that, you get upset. I'm bewildered why anyone would do that. It's like deliberately eating poison.

 

[wynn]

Do they? In what way? Could you give an example?

Ever told a person, or witnessed a person being told that he or she is "too sensitive" and "should grow a thicker skin"?
That's a good example of people showing they have differing ideas about what constitutes harm - one person felt hurt, and the other thought that they should not.

Pretending that the concept is so flexible it has no meaning

I only pointed to the easily verifiable fact that people have different ideas of what constitutes harm, and that this plays a part in any discussion about harm.

No, we don't. What we have is not a discussion, but a few people in positions of power telling others what is supposedly right and what is wrong.

I don't know what "power telling" means,

Let me parse that sentence for you:

but a few people in positions of power
telling others what is supposedly right and what is wrong

I was talking about people in positions of power. Such as moderators.

but if you don't like the nature of debate, then why are you here?

Who said I don't like the nature of the debate? You.

How about any detail? How about instead of just criticizing others, you actually support your criticisms with a competing idea?

My response was to Fraggle. Fraggle makes blanket statements about all religions, and a good portion of philosophy. So I take for granted that he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all religious scriptures and philosophical writings too, down to chapter and verse. Because of that, I see no need to go into any detail in conversations with him, as for such a thoroughly knowledgeable person (for it must be that he is thoroughly knowledgeable, otherwise, he couldn't criticize religion and philosophy the way he does), hints are more than enough.
For some others, I expand as requested.

How, exactly, are homosexuals harming themselves? You list a "common problem" below, so what's the "uncommon" one you feel the need to single gay people out for?

My sentence was - "The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process." Clearly, I wasn't singling out gay men. I was singling out "sex for pleasure."

How is sex objectification? In typical fashion, you've made a claim without supporting it. Pretend I'm an idiot and explain to me exactly how sex equates to objectification.

Already addressed earlier:

It's the default of life as it is usually lived.

I think you wildly underestimate how far objectification of self and other goes.

Whenever you identify with your body, you objectify yourself. Whenever you identify another person with their body, you objectify them.

I can't fathom how you, of all people, could possibly get upset by someone talking down to someone else.

That upset is all in your mind. I'm not upset.

95% of your posts are blatantly condescending.

That's just your perception.

 

[Balerion]

Ever told a person, or witnessed a person being told that he or she is "too sensitive" and "should grow a thicker skin"?
That's a good example of people showing they have differing ideas about what constitutes harm - one person felt hurt, and the other thought that they should not.

We're not talking about hurt feelings and bruised egos. We're talking about actual psychological and physical harm.

I only pointed to the easily verifiable fact that people have different ideas of what constitutes harm, and that this plays a part in any discussion about harm.

No, you attempted to render the term useless by saying anyone could apply it to anything.

Who said I don't like the nature of the debate? You.

Who is whining about the nature of the debate? You.

My response was to Fraggle. Fraggle makes blanket statements about all religions, and a good portion of philosophy. So I take for granted that he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all religious scriptures and philosophical writings too, down to chapter and verse. Because of that, I see no need to go into any detail in conversations with him, as for such a thoroughly knowledgeable person (for it must be that he is thoroughly knowledgeable, otherwise, he couldn't criticize religion and philosophy the way he does), hints are more than enough.
For some others, I expand as requested.

But you haven't expanded. You never do. Fraggle as much as begged you to do elaborate, and you've done nothing but excuse yourself since.

My sentence was - "The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process." Clearly, I wasn't singling out gay men. I was singling out "sex for pleasure."

Uh, you forgot the part directly before that. Let me refresh your memory:

It's not so much that homosexuality is about harming other people. It's about the homosexuals harming themselves. And "unsanitary practices" being the least concern in all this.

Now how, exactly, are homosexuals harming themselves? Or are you retracting this statement?

Already addressed earlier:

No, you're simply repeating your previously claims. I want to know how, exactly, there is no sex without objectification. If you hold this to be true, certainly you can explain yourself, how you reached this conclusion, what you base it on...?

That upset is all in your mind. I'm not upset.

You're complaining about it. If it's no bother, what's the point of complaining?

That's just your perception.

No, that's how you come across.

 

[Balerion]

There is one kind of sex that is purportedly beyond such objectification, namely tantric sex. But actual tantric sex requires very advanced practitioners who don't objectify (and they don't do it for pleasure or love either; doing so would automatically disqualify them).

How do you know there is such a thing as "actual" tantra? How do you know it isn't just pretentious people excusing their sexuality by giving it a false air of spirituality?

Shooting heroin in one's veins is pleasurable too. For some people, sometimes. Doesn't mean that shooting heroin up one's veins is inherently pleasurable.

What the hell are you talking about?