[Rachel Bronwyn]

And we have a winner! Give the Warlock a medal!

Originally Posted by Jungles

I don't think you've really thought this through.

Nice to see you have a better grasp of what goes on in my brain than I.

Revulsion and attraction are on the same scale.

No, they're not. Revulsion is extreme. Attraction varies in degree.

Even if your cause was geared toward getting everyone to be attracted to everything equally, it's still a critique against what people are attracted to.

No, it's not. It's a critique against irrational response to benign stimuli. The fact one finds the stimuli unattractive is of no concern to me nor is what they do find appealing. The extreme response and it's irrational basis are the issue.

I've no interest in everyone being attracted to everything equally. Don't know where you got that from.

In the context of forming a relationship, you simply can't force someone to like all people equally

No shit.

(whether it's against revulsion or for attraction, it's the same thing).

No, it's not. Challenging someone to examine their highly irrational, extreme response to something benign is not the same as forcing someone to not be offended by something or find it attractive. Saying "Your treatment of gay people and response to situations you perceive as gay is irrational" is not the same as saying "You need to learn to find this sexy/not interpret this as gross." When someone's displeasure with a particular stimuli is due to senseless bigotry, challenging them to get the hell over it has to do with that senseless bias, not objective stimuli experienced as attractive or offensive. There's no intention to make the stimuli attractive to them nor is there any intention to make it less repulsive, only to expose the profound irrationality of the basis of their offense. Even once examined, the stimuli my remain unappealing. The faulty logic upon which it stands, which is harmful to others, will dissipate though.

And yeah, when what offends you is based on irrational beliefs about other human beings, you should confront those ideas as they're profoundly harmful to others. When your irrational revulsion hurts other people it should be critiqued.

No one should have that kind of control over an individual's preference.

Preference and damaging biases based on irrationality are not the same thing. Everyone is entitled to challenge everyone else's irrational biases when those biases are harmful to others.

There are many sexual minorities whom I'm sure would be able to explain this to you in great detail.

Like...... me?

For example, on a hetrosexual date, is it wrong for a woman to ask the man what he does for a living because she's looking for a mate who could support a family? Of course not.

Wrong? No. Petty? Yes. I can't stand people who seek partners with the intention of finding someone to depend on.

Would you not agree that it would wrong for that man to then say "I'm a doctor" when he's really only a garbage collector? The man's motivation is to be accepted by the woman so he could have sex regardless of how she feels about the deception. Is that the most important thing? Sex by any means necessary? Doesn't the woman's preference matter?

That's entirely dependent on one's personal ethics. To the dude who got laid, no, the woman's preference doesn't matter as his intention was to get laid, not to support the woman and her future babies. I wouldn't date a guy like that but ethics aren't universal. I also wouldn't sleep with someone I couldn't trust to tell me their actual occupation.

Now, that said, in the context of pornography, where it's all about the sexual excitement over imagery, you may have a case as long as the illusion is preserved.

Yep.

After all, in this forum, people like seeing women suddenly hulk out. There has never been an instance of this in real life, so naturally it's all fake. People are willing to accept that illusion as long as details don't come to light that shatter it.

Those taking in this form of titillation are entirely aware it's fake. Those details came to light before anyone began making girly muscle videos, yet no one cares until the dreaded Y chromosome makes it's entrance!

Once those details show up, it's our natural instinct to evaluate if this is a suitable mate, and if it turns out the she is a he, and you're not attracted to a he, then individual preference on a mate takes precedence.

Yes, because people who "act" in porn and jiggle flicks are TOTALLY attainable and interested in the people who watch their work.

Porn and jiggle videos aren't about seeking mates. They're about getting off.

If someone physically and psychologically fits the description of an attractive woman and you find them appealing UNTIL you find out they have a Y chromosome, you are shallow. When sexually enjoying the image of a psychological woman with a female body which you find particularly attractive is overridden by your revulsion over the concept of sexually enjoying someone with the same chromosomes as you, you're a homophobe. A Y chromosome doesn't make you a "he", by the way. That notion is pretty bigoted.

It's everyone's right to be shallow. It's everyone's right to be a homophobe. It's also everyone's right to deem other people's irrational, hateful beliefs wrong and to challenge people on them.