Guardian newspaper on demisexual pride cups

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:18 PM, Telecaster68 said:

I just thought it was funny. 

.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:22 PM, Telecaster68 said:

I know. The cheek of me.

.

[GrayJay]

GO DEMI’S. I fight for each and every one of you.

[Dreamsexual]

,

[Guest]

On 6/6/2019 at 8:34 AM, Dreamsexual said:

True, that's certainly where the focus lay.

 

But reading between the lines some of her expression choice leaves no real doubt as to how she thinks about sexualities outside the LGBT circle.

 

Which is why my response was mostly 'not impressed' and 'ugh' rather than something more animated.

To be fair, the description of grey and demi in the article sound pretty run of the mill sexual. Which is what budweiser gave her. Which is probably as far as she probed. 

[Dreamsexual]

,

[Skycaptain]

OK, time to stay on topic, rather than nit-picking. Skycaptain moderator TGA 

[Philip027]

Probably better off just locking the thread rather than encouraging it to continue, considering the OP even requested that it be allowed to die.

 

Also, for the record, I thought Tele's link was funny too.  That's pretty much exactly what most people think of the idea of the most common and un-marginalized group of people having a "Pride" for themselves.

 

I for one don't even understand the concept of being "prideful" for something you were born with and did absolutely jack shit to earn, but EYYY

[Dreamsexual]

I,,

[GrayJay]

5 hours ago, CBC said:

I'm not trying to negate the fact that the pattern of attraction and desire denoted by the word 'demisexual' is a legitimate way of experiencing one's sexuality, it most definitely is, but what exactly are demis fighting for?

I fight so I do it for Demi’s. 

[bare_trees]

3 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

I think the intention of tele's post has been missed.  It wasn't to make a comment about straight pride.  That was just a convinient vehicle.  It could have been a hundred different things.

 

*sigh*

 

Yeah, lock the thread.  It doesn't matter anymore, I think the damage done is irreparable.

You suggested that minors can consent to sexual activity.  I hope you're referring to damage you might have done.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:59 AM, bare_trees said:

You suggested that minors can consent to sexual activity

.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

10 hours ago, bare_trees said:

You suggested that minors can consent to sexual activity.  I hope you're referring to damage you might have done.

I've been avoiding this thread cos it's fucking upset me but this? No he never did. He has a kid himself who he's sacrificing his happiness for. If you're gonna make accusations like that at least back it up.

 

The damage done is saying things like otherkin are ridiculous and that human-object relationships are inferior to human-human ones, and comparing them is 'offensive'. But hey, at least we know where we stand now eh? I was naive to think we'd ever be seen as equals.

[Custard Cream]

I am disappointed by seeing some of the intolerance on this thread.  I want to state that I fully support anyone who identifies as OS, Otherkin, Ficto etc. I like to hope I am not alone.

[bare_trees]

On 6/9/2019 at 5:29 PM, Dreamsexual said:

I think some might disagree with you.

But I really wish this thread would just die already.

^This was the response to this post by me: 

"It's because machines and fictional characters (and minors, since that did come up at some point earlier in the thread) can't consent to the relationship, nor can they reciprocate in the manner that other humans do."

 

I think you could see how I would interpret it that way.  It at least implies that others, not necessarily the poster would say that children are capable of consent.

 

But if that's not how you feel, then I apologize for misinterpreting the post.

[bare_trees]

1 hour ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I've been avoiding this thread cos it's fucking upset me but this? No he never did. He has a kid himself who he's sacrificing his happiness for. If you're gonna make accusations like that at least back it up.

 

The damage done is saying things like otherkin are ridiculous and that human-object relationships are inferior to human-human ones, and comparing them is 'offensive'. But hey, at least we know where we stand now eh? I was naive to think we'd ever be seen as equals.

It was right there on the page.  See my post above.

 

I understand, at least in theory, having relationships with those who are not human.  But I don't believe they can consent and no one has explained to me how they can.  If this were the Star Trek verse, and we were talking about the Doctor or Data, I could see the state recognizing a relationship that is romantic and/or sexual and I would argue for marriage and adoption rights.  But I don't see how that's where we are now.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 1:10 PM, bare_trees said:

^This was the response to this post by me: 

"It's because machines and fictional characters (and minors, since that did come up at some point earlier in the thread) can't consent to the relationship, nor can they reciprocate in the manner that other humans do."

 

I think you could see how I would interpret it that way.  It at least implies that others, not necessarily the poster would say that children are capable of consent.

 

But if that's not how you feel, then I apologize for misinterpreting the post.

.

[bare_trees]

1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said:

I was only arguing about machines ... I really missed the minor thing, because I don't have any memory of when that appeared in the thread ...

I accept your apology for misinterpreting.

And I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression.

My line is, and always has been, 'informed consent' - and when it comes to objectums I think informed consent can be implied or accepted on their own metaphysical terms, since if you are not  animist their is no consciousness to consent (its just masturbation), but if you're an animist objectum then you sincerely believe you are receiving consent.  Either way, there is no harm.

But no worries, I'm done anyway, but I'm glad that we didn't have to part on me being held to be a pedophile. 

Ok, there's some ideas in there I should probably look up because I'm just not familiar with them.

 

But thanks for accepting.  I didn't think *you* felt that way about consent and minors; I thought you were saying you could argue for someone else.  But I understand you weren't actually responding to that part.

[flatulence]

this was a year ago, but whatever.

i think that THE WORST part of that article was the author's tone. It's always the tone... always.

[Skycaptain]

This thread is a year old, and deserves a graceful retirement, so locking. Skycaptain moderator TGA