Oklahoma's domino has fallen

[Cassius]

Hmm. The difference between celibacy and promiscuity is that the former is essentially a no risk position. You can't impregnate someone by mistake, you can't contract a sexually transmitted disease, you can't, I don't know, get beaten up (or have any form of revenge inflicted upon you) by a jilted, irate spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend. Not to say that any of those would necessarily happen to a promiscuous person; but the potential is there, unlike with a celibate person. To treat both as being equally unhealthy vices assumes that they both have the potential to be equally damaging, which, to my mind, the don't. Not that I'm in the celibacy camp per se, but it does seem to be a far less risky lifestyle, and thus a far less unhealthy way of living.

[King]

Celibacy creates a very poor emotional state, which is far worse than herpes. Now, inks off.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I sincerely hope you intend that to mean a tendency rather than a universal outcome, because--I know the plural of anecdote is not data but if you're claiming a universal outcome then this is still relevant--I've met and in some cases been personally close to more than a few very well-adjusted celibate people, who wouldn't be offended so much as confused to be told that their emotional state is 'far worse than herpes'. More to the point, I don't think and am frankly baffled by the suggestion that my emotional state is 'far worse than herpes', though it's admittedly not that great either.

[King]

Well, gee golly gosh, Nathan, but I do intend to say a herpes outbreak once every blue moon is preferable to being an asexual trans victimologist every single day.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Well, gee golly gosh, Nathan, but I do intend to say a herpes outbreak once every blue moon is preferable to being an asexual trans victimologist every single day.

What are you, like, twelve?

Maybe if you weren't so condescending and snide I'd do you the courtesy of assuming you developed this opinion in good faith, but, oh well.

[King]

I preferred your original response. But I think even you could see being the kind of guy who wrote that post was definitely worse than herpes.

[Cassius]

I preferred your original response. But I think even you could see being the kind of guy who wrote that post was definitely worse than herpes.

Brilliant. 'Cassius - Worse than Herpes', I love it

[afleitch]

I preferred your original response. But I think even you could see being the kind of guy who wrote that post was definitely worse than herpes.

I'd be interested to see that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So are we rating other people's happiness now?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I preferred your original response. But I think even you could see being the kind of guy who wrote that post was definitely worse than herpes.

Stop it. Your opinion is ridiculous and your manner of expressing it is inexcusable. My body and my psyche are my own experience, and your commentary on that experience—particularly the way you doubled down on it after I pointed out that this isn’t just about an abstraction that doesn’t occur in reality or an excuse to take pot-shots at Catholic holy orders, it’s about real people with real inner lives that you’ve unilaterally declared worse than an STD (granted, a mild STD)—is unneeded, unhelpful, unappreciated, and unwelcome.

I'd be interested to see that.

Oh! All right. As I recall, the first sentence was something along the lines of 'In that case, I don't agree with your opinion, and I can't even take it seriously'. The second sentence was the same as it is in the existing response, except I called King 'Your Majesty' at the end. I changed it because I recognized that it was supercilious and self-indulgent (I can't agree with King's opinion, I can't take it seriously...well of course I can't!), whereas questioning King's emotional maturity was, to my mind, just confused and kind of dismissive, which was closer to what I was going for. (It was still unkind, of course, but in my defense I was originally trying to be measured and temperate and he responded by being downright insulting.)

So are we rating other people's happiness now?

Apparently. Antonio! You seem unhappy because you're French! Go move to Germany or something!

Things that might make living my life arguably worse than having a properly treated case of herpes, for the record: Financial problems. Trouble dealing with uncertainty about the future. Fallings-out with friends. People like King making unfounded, judgmental pronouncements about the lives of people like me, then insulting and talking down to me for daring to disagree with them. Things that make my life stabler, more self-contained, and easier to manage: Not having sex.

[King]

Glad to see some sort of emotion in your posts for once. Maybe there's a few hormones in that body of yours after all.

And if "supercilious and self-indulgent" is your term for "sounding like my royal Eunuch," I agree with that, too.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Glad to see some sort of emotion in your posts for once. Maybe there's a few hormones in that body of yours after all.

Why would it be so much worse if there weren't? Are you really that unwilling to just apologize for insulting me because I had the temerity to point out that you were phrasing a somewhat grandiose generalization as some sort of universal psychological fact? Does that really offend your sensibilities so God-damn much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever. I hope your nonexistent country becomes a republic.

[King]

No reason for me to apologize. I said celibates are emotionally off-kilter and your responses to me certainly don't have me second guessing that assertion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No reason for me to apologize. I said celibates are emotionally off-kilter and your responses to me certainly don't have me second guessing that assertion.

How was I supposed to respond? Laugh and pretend to agree? Disagree but not say anything? Make my original, studiously unemotive response, and then ignore your subsequent personal attacks? You haven't, incidentally, given any indication as to how you think I'm 'emotionally off-kilter', other than, apparently, taking it personally when I'm repeatedly insulted by somebody who's never met me. I have no idea what the acceptable range of emotion or emotional expression in King-verse even is, except that sexual activity (or just desire for sexual activity? What is the minimum amount of sex necessary to be well-adjusted in your worldview?--Rhetorical question; I have no interest in knowing the answer to this) is absolutely mandatory for some reason.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Let's keep the attacks focused on the ideas and not the person presenting them. Thanks.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Like I said in my last post I have no clear notion of what precisely the idea in question is exactly and don't really care to find out so I'd prefer to just disengage at this point if that's all right with my, uh, interlocutor.

[tik 🪀✨]

No reason for me to apologize. I said celibates are emotionally off-kilter and your responses to me certainly don't have me second guessing that assertion.

I suppose having your inclinations (or lack of inclinations) constantly called into question by strangers would make you come off as off-kilter after the millionth misunderstanding.  I think you made a thoughtless joke without any ill intent and, having been called out on it being rude, proceeded to double down out of petty spite. That's considerably less well adjusted than the way you've been replied to.

[traininthedistance]

No reason for me to apologize. I said celibates are emotionally off-kilter and your responses to me certainly don't have me second guessing that assertion.

It only seems that way to you because you're viewing Nathan's responses through the lens of your own pre-existing (and obviously doubled-down-upon) prejudice, rather than having any sort of empathy for the idea that maybe people aren't going to take kindly to having their more personal and immutable characteristics be so casually and constantly misunderstood and insulted.

Jeez.  Yes, you do need to apologize.  "Man up", as they say, and just do it.

[DC Al Fine]

No reason for me to apologize. I said celibates are emotionally off-kilter and your responses to me certainly don't have me second guessing that assertion.

I suppose having your inclinations (or lack of inclinations) constantly called into question by strangers would make you come off as off-kilter after the millionth misunderstanding.  I think you made a thoughtless joke without any ill intent and, having been called out on it being rude, proceeded to double down out of petty spite. That's considerably less well adjusted than the way you've been replied to.

You've got to love it when a gay rights supporter bashes other people's lifestyles with no sense of irony whatsoever.

[Хahar 🤔]

I have no idea at all what point King is trying to make here, but it's disappointing to see.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have no idea at all what point King is trying to make here, but it's disappointing to see.

Indeed. He's always struck me as a cool and generally intelligent poster, so I'm quite surprised to see him being such an immature asshole for absolutely no reason.

Just apologize, dude.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, as you know I'm not usually prone to "checkmate, lieberals"-type statements, but what about that whole "being tolerant of different lifestyles and not being too quick to judge them" thing? This seems particularly relevant considering what this thread is originally about.

[afleitch]

Also, as you know I'm not usually prone to "checkmate, lieberals"-type statements, but what about that whole "being tolerant of different lifestyles and not being too quick to judge them" thing? This seems particularly relevant considering what this thread is originally about.

For what it’s worth my original comment on celibacy (which seems to have grown arms and legs since I last checked in) was a rebuttal of the argument (in case it arose from our latest troll) that celibacy should be the route taken by people with non-heterosexual sexualities. Arrangements like that are not psychologically healthy, laced as they often are, with religious connotation and expectation. Personal celibacy is one thing; people drift in and out of periods of sexual activity all the time, but celibacy because ‘it’s what god wants me to do because I am not a married heterosexual’ is another.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, as you know I'm not usually prone to "checkmate, lieberals"-type statements, but what about that whole "being tolerant of different lifestyles and not being too quick to judge them" thing? This seems particularly relevant considering what this thread is originally about.

For what it’s worth my original comment on celibacy (which seems to have grown arms and legs since I last checked in) was a rebuttal of the argument (in case it arose from our latest troll) that celibacy should be the route taken by people with non-heterosexual sexualities. Arrangements like that are not psychologically healthy, laced as they often are, with religious connotation and expectation. Personal celibacy is one thing; people drift in and out of periods of sexual activity all the time, but celibacy because ‘it’s what god wants me to do because I am not a married heterosexual’ is another.

I wasn't criticizing you - actually, your post  was excellent and I entirely agree with it. King is the only one who's being a bigoted asshole about this whole thing. I actually fully agree that being in a relationship is, for most people (me included) far preferable to celibacy. That doesn't meant I have to be a dick toward those who feel happier as celibates.

[Gustaf]

Also, as you know I'm not usually prone to "checkmate, lieberals"-type statements, but what about that whole "being tolerant of different lifestyles and not being too quick to judge them" thing? This seems particularly relevant considering what this thread is originally about.

For what it’s worth my original comment on celibacy (which seems to have grown arms and legs since I last checked in) was a rebuttal of the argument (in case it arose from our latest troll) that celibacy should be the route taken by people with non-heterosexual sexualities. Arrangements like that are not psychologically healthy, laced as they often are, with religious connotation and expectation. Personal celibacy is one thing; people drift in and out of periods of sexual activity all the time, but celibacy because ‘it’s what god wants me to do because I am not a married heterosexual’ is another.

I wasn't criticizing you - actually, your post  was excellent and I entirely agree with it. King is the only one who's being a bigoted asshole about this whole thing. I actually fully agree that being in a relationship is, for most people (me included) far preferable to celibacy. That doesn't meant I have to be a dick toward those who feel happier as celibates.

I think I'm clarifying what Afleitch is saying rather than adding to it, but there is a world of difference between a form of forced celibacy coming from religion not allowing your natural desires to be fulfilled and choosing celibacy. I will freely admit that I don't "get" celibacy but it is certainly no stranger to me than a host of other freaky sexual practices.