AND MY MOST IMPORTANT POST OF THE DAY:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
You’ll find that most women in the west aren’t goaded easily, we are accustomed to being compared to whores by less free cultures
|
Don't dodge my question lady. I asked you if you would like to define 'women who like men' as 'whores.' If men who like men can be defined into a separate category of 'gays,' then why can't 'women who like men' be defined into a separate category as 'whores'?
They were both stigmatized human traits before the west liberalized one and penalized the other even further.
The trait of 'man liking men' have been ascbribed to the 'transgendered, promiscuous she-males'. So, why shouldn't the trait of women liking men be defined by promiscuous women who were seen as 'characterless.' Before 'gay' started to mean 'man liking man' it was used for whores and 'third gender prmoiscuous males' alike. Mr. Historian Dune, did they teach this to you in your history class?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
I merely found your comparison so ridiculous as to be not reply worthy, personally, I mean the whole issue here is to “not” define somebody by there sexual act, right.
|
Bigoted people conveniently choose to ignore where it hurts personally.
The issue is not just "not" to define someone by their sexual acts but also, NOT TO MISDEFINE PEOPLE BY THEIR SEXUAL ACTS or more importantly by acts of love, bonding and intimacy.
However, if you don't like to be defined yourself by your sexual acts (as whore!!) then how can you justify a system of social classification that defines and seggregates males by the choice of their sexual and romantic acts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
But, if it helps, whores are persons who typically get paid for sex, both male and female whores exists.
|
You are quick to explain what 'whore' actually means. Today, the Western society has glorified female promiscuity and you no longer have to be equated to a whore. However, at the time when they were rearranging the society (liberalizing/ heterosexualizing it) and making the 'homosexual' category, 'whore' was used for any woman who showed an interest in sex with men.
Just like 'whores' are a group of women who get paid for sex, and they are not just any woman who likes sex with men, 'gay' was actually a group of 'feminine males' who like sex with men, and not just any male who likes sex with men. Being a whore was just as stigmatized for women, as male femininity was for men.
What did your society do then. It liberated and mainstreamed the promiscuous female. So, today a promiscuous woman is just a 'heterosexual woman'. However, your society equated the feminine males (gays) with "men liking men" and gave them the name 'homosexual.'
If this was done in the context of 'whores' and the society had instread defined 'whores' as 'women who like men' at that crucial time, how many females do you think would have acknowledged liking men, and would have gone on to take on the 'heterosexual' identity? Only the real whores would call themselves 'heterosexual women'.
So, can you see what exactly happened with men? Would you expect men to go and embrace their sexual desire for men and to acknowledge it publicly, and then be labelled as 'homosexual' which is actually 'feminine male whore'? The only people who can be expected to own up their sexuality for men would be the effeminate, promiscuous males, who're addicted to receptive anal sex -- and that is exactly what is happening today.
Nothing better to make insensitive, bigoted women to understand this, than the 'whore' vs 'homo' analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
I don’t judge them either, and I would never try to ascribe to them a separate gender orientation because of it.
|
Did I ask you to ascribe them a separate gender orientation? NO!! I asked you to ascribe to them a separate 'sexual orientation', just as you want males who like men to have a separate 'sexual orientation'.
So, now you understand that ascribing a separate 'sexual orientation' actually tantamounts to "judging them".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic
I would never try to ascribe to them a separate gender orientation because of it.
|
To put it in your own terms ... Why? Why can't it be just be simply defining their sexual lifestyle/ preferences? Remember what you said in the case of male desire for men:
"a homosexual person is a person who has chosen to accept that moniker to describe their personal sexual preference, they like sex with the same gendered partner. That’s simply their choice."
What if I say, "A whore is a person who has chosen to accept that moniker to describe her personal sexual preference (for multiple male partners or for sex without marriage). That's simply their choice."?
THINK!!!
The point is, why would you want to identify someone by a trait that the entire society is hostile to. And to isolate them into a separate category, like a punishment! Esp, when the identity itself is a misdefinition/ misrepresentation.
And Dunedan,
I don't get paid to do this, right.
I am not going to spoonfeed you the posts that I make. Do some work. Find out for yourself. There are quite a few. They've been outlined too, much to the disliking of the administrators.
Also, don't expect me to do a paper for you right here. Wait for it. I've to deal with loads of crap at one go. I can only take things up a few at a time. I'd definitely shred your brand of history to pieces. Just be patient. Be in queue ...