There’s degrees to everything, though. There’s plenty of traits I think are perfectly okay for people to have, but that I’m still not looking for in a partner. So I guess I probably also fail your purity test.
No obviously not. I wouldn’t date black or Asian folks for instance, or fat people, or dumb people or overly outdoorsy folks or a right-winger or a religious person or anyone under 5’10". I’ll happily stand to defend all those folks rights and I’ll stand by them hand in hand in solidarity, we just won’t fuck.
This is ok. This is normal. When it comes to personal association, especially sexual, freedom of association - is a core tenet of any libertarian socially progressive ideology worth it’s salt. And that’s the kind of progressive I’m down for.
You know, I was pretty assured on my line of reasoning here until I read “I wouldn’t date black or Asian folks” and… eeeeh, maybe there’s room for nuance here.
In my defense, I’ll say it’s the way of putting it that feels icky more than the sentiment. But still. Kinda ew. Don’t know if this was a Socratic, reverse psychology thing, but if so, well played.
It’s both really, I actually do hold that viewpoint as described in the original comment, but I also wanted to say it in a way that conveyed why some folks might be made uncomfortable by rhetoric like that.
I definitely agree it’s how you say it - but also where and when and how much you say it.
I think such preferences are fine obviously, but I’d question the motives of anyone who goes around claiming that often and considers it a large part of their identity. Context is everything in the end.
Well, yeah, but that’s the point. It’s “I’m not into that”, as opposed to “I wouldn’t date X type of people”. The point is you can not be into things without it being a political statement. Even if your political line of choice tends to favor a particular aesthetic.
Why would you be? You can be absolutely aware of the social patterns imposed on you, including those that are discriminatory or unfair, and still be subject to their effects.
Humans build a lot of their psyche by socializing. From aesthetic preference to sexual arousal or choices of flavor and texture for food. You’re not a hypocrite for not liking spicy food growing up in a culture with milder tastes and you’re not a hypocrite for finding traditional gendered aesthetics attractive after growing up in a culture that reinforced them at you at every turn.
You’re a hypocrite if you find those distasteful or exploitative and still perpetuate them forward to your kids, but even if you don’t, you’re not the only influence they have.
See, that’s why this is a bit of a bummer. This fiction on leftist circles that you can change a deeply ingrained societal pattern overnight or you’re a failure or a hypocrite is not just unrealistic, it’s kind of ignorant and mean spirited. You should be concerned with not making things worse and moving them in the right direction, but you shouldn’t always take the maximalist approach and assume you’re responsible for enforcing overnight radical change.
That’s how right wingers keep setting up their dumb absurdity checks. They just dare progressives to go maximal on every stupid detail and then point at it and call it a lack of common sense. You can recognize a consequence of inequality without enforcing a complete solution instantly. Change takes time, even on an individual level.
Man, that’s even more confused. So you can be heteronormatively horny, but only as long as you acknowledge the possibility of boning outside your comfort zone? If gender nonconforming sex happens in the hypothetical woods does anybody hear it?
Honestly, that’d be kinda funny if it wasn’t such a depressing proxy for leftist purity tests and frequent inability to accept any intermediate states between utopian idealized outcomes and right wing dystopia.
doesn’t count as a true Scotsman fallacy if I assume they aren’t really progressive.
but you can’t be progressive if you have an issue with queer people or anyone bending gender boundaries.
There’s degrees to everything, though. There’s plenty of traits I think are perfectly okay for people to have, but that I’m still not looking for in a partner. So I guess I probably also fail your purity test.
Okay, but are you banned from progressivism if you’re not into them sexually?
That’s a hell of an onus. Like, you literally need to work yourself up to being horny for “anyone bending gender boundaries” or you’re out?
No obviously not. I wouldn’t date black or Asian folks for instance, or fat people, or dumb people or overly outdoorsy folks or a right-winger or a religious person or anyone under 5’10". I’ll happily stand to defend all those folks rights and I’ll stand by them hand in hand in solidarity, we just won’t fuck.
This is ok. This is normal. When it comes to personal association, especially sexual, freedom of association - is a core tenet of any libertarian socially progressive ideology worth it’s salt. And that’s the kind of progressive I’m down for.
You know, I was pretty assured on my line of reasoning here until I read “I wouldn’t date black or Asian folks” and… eeeeh, maybe there’s room for nuance here.
In my defense, I’ll say it’s the way of putting it that feels icky more than the sentiment. But still. Kinda ew. Don’t know if this was a Socratic, reverse psychology thing, but if so, well played.
It’s both really, I actually do hold that viewpoint as described in the original comment, but I also wanted to say it in a way that conveyed why some folks might be made uncomfortable by rhetoric like that.
I definitely agree it’s how you say it - but also where and when and how much you say it.
I think such preferences are fine obviously, but I’d question the motives of anyone who goes around claiming that often and considers it a large part of their identity. Context is everything in the end.
Well, yeah, but that’s the point. It’s “I’m not into that”, as opposed to “I wouldn’t date X type of people”. The point is you can not be into things without it being a political statement. Even if your political line of choice tends to favor a particular aesthetic.
No, but you’re a hypocrite.
Why would you be? You can be absolutely aware of the social patterns imposed on you, including those that are discriminatory or unfair, and still be subject to their effects.
Humans build a lot of their psyche by socializing. From aesthetic preference to sexual arousal or choices of flavor and texture for food. You’re not a hypocrite for not liking spicy food growing up in a culture with milder tastes and you’re not a hypocrite for finding traditional gendered aesthetics attractive after growing up in a culture that reinforced them at you at every turn.
You’re a hypocrite if you find those distasteful or exploitative and still perpetuate them forward to your kids, but even if you don’t, you’re not the only influence they have.
See, that’s why this is a bit of a bummer. This fiction on leftist circles that you can change a deeply ingrained societal pattern overnight or you’re a failure or a hypocrite is not just unrealistic, it’s kind of ignorant and mean spirited. You should be concerned with not making things worse and moving them in the right direction, but you shouldn’t always take the maximalist approach and assume you’re responsible for enforcing overnight radical change.
That’s how right wingers keep setting up their dumb absurdity checks. They just dare progressives to go maximal on every stupid detail and then point at it and call it a lack of common sense. You can recognize a consequence of inequality without enforcing a complete solution instantly. Change takes time, even on an individual level.
you aren’t obligated to be attracted to anyone.
but if you have a rule that intentionally discriminates someone, then sort of. there’s some work for them to do internally.
Man, that’s even more confused. So you can be heteronormatively horny, but only as long as you acknowledge the possibility of boning outside your comfort zone? If gender nonconforming sex happens in the hypothetical woods does anybody hear it?
Honestly, that’d be kinda funny if it wasn’t such a depressing proxy for leftist purity tests and frequent inability to accept any intermediate states between utopian idealized outcomes and right wing dystopia.
That’s a BrandNewSentence if I’ve ever seen any.
deleted by creator