[ SECRET POST #2708 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2708 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Degrassi Junior High/Degrassi High and Saved By The Bell]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Cinema Snob]

__________________________________________________



04.
[Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Silicon Valley]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Xavier Dolan]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pacific Rim]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Sailor Moon]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Iwan Rheon]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Love Stage!!]


__________________________________________________



11.
[The Losers (movie)]


__________________________________________________



12.
[K-pop]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

First of all, the lot of you busting out these extreme examples just proves you really don't have an argument to stand on, and secondly, I have many many times seen espoused here on FS that "if it's only fantasy, it's OK!!" so I would turn that question back to YOU and say, if YOU were to choose to fantasize about that (which, ew on several levels, but let's say hypothetically), would you then use the argument "it's only fantasy so it's OK!!"? Why or why not?

...but I'm the one being accused of being ridiculous. Right.

[duaedesigns]

We're attempting to help you prove your hypothesis. You can choose who you're sexually attracted to, and who you're not sexually attracted to. When did you choose not to want to fuck your mom and dad? I'm curious. When did you sit down and go "I do not want to be attracted to my mom and dad, so I won't be!" And why haven't you decided to change your mind, just to see what it would be like?

[(Anonymous)]

So you're resorting to the "when did you stop beating your wife" argument/fallacy? Why should I respond? That's not "trying to help me prove my hypothesis" that's just getting more ridiculous and extreme, in an attempt to prove your own!

[duaedesigns]

No I'm not. That would be "When did you stop being attracted to your parents?"

Your hypothesis - everyone chooses at some point if they're going to be attracted to an individual or not.

So to prove your hypothesis, take an individual i.e. your father. When did you decide not to be attracted to him? Or if I shouldn't assume you're not, alternatively, when did you make the conscious choice to want to have sex with him? And can you change your choice?

I mean, I don't think I personally could choose to be attracted to my father. He's my dad!

[(Anonymous)]

Hypotheses have to be tested with extreme examples to find their range of applicability. How else do you think that works?

Under your definition of attraction can you explain why someone could not choose to be attracted to their parents? Why do you treat that suggestion as ridiculous?

[(Anonymous)]

Well done, old chap. You are truly worthy of the moniker of old. You recall a glorious time nearly 20 years' past.

[(Anonymous)]

That's actually a bad example because humans are conditioned not to want to bone their parents, so free will is limited.

I bet the AYRT wouldn't be able to work up a sex jones for a filthy raving piss-soaked stranger on the bus, though. Humans are attracted to certain things, and gender is a part of that, depending on orientation.

Also agree with the person above who reminds us that Jesus forgave many people who broke biblical law and preached love and acceptance.

[duaedesigns]

Eeh, not really, because if you're talking biological conditioning then you're on the side of "It's a biological thing, not a choice." And if you're talking social conditioning, most countries still have a pretty big heteronormative push.

In a less 'extreme' example though, if attraction was logical and 100% under control, no one would ever have a bad dating relationship. Or ever look back and go "Wow, they were a total loser, I was blinded by love!"

I've also seen the 'attraction is a choice' used to defend 'friendzoning' of, oh, that girl could choose to be attracted to me, but she chose not to. What a bitch!

[diet_poison]

yyyyyup.

[(Anonymous)]

Fantasies usually have some connection to reality. For example, when someone has a rape fantasy, it doesn't necessarily mean that they want to be raped -- it does, however, tend to mean that they have difficulty letting go sexually. Many women who grew up in repressive, patriarchal settings can only experience pleasure during sex when they pretend that they are being raped, because the notion that it's wrong for them to actually want it and be an active participant is so deeply ingrained.

Sexual fantasy is distinct from sexual and romantic attraction. The two stem from different sources. For instance, my fantasies involve extreme control, but I am not at all attracted to controlling men. Attraction comes from a very different place, and all of the evidence we have suggests that it is innate.

The trouble is that you won't buy biological explanations, because you don't like the idea that anything we do is connected to our biology. But here's the problem: if we were made, then we were made with bodies. We were made with our biology. Why would we be destined to reject that part of creation?