Not Sure What To Do With This Girl (Long, Please Read)

[BackUpOrGetStng]

He wasn't being homophobic, he was just clarifying in which way he ''loved" me. I appreciate that he does not want to have homosexual intercourse with me, and he cares enough to let me know that.

[searock]

Saying "no homo" is homophobic because it implies that if the "love" he felt for you had been romantic, it would have been a negative/undesirable thing. There was absolutely no need to specify it - obviously he didn't mean it romantically, you two are strangers to each other.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

You feel the need to specify "some women", every ****ing time a say "women", no matter how obvious it is that I don't mean all women.

If homosexuals want to profess their love, bang each other, suck each other off, whatever..I'm all for it. Hell, I think gay marriage should be legal. However, sexual attention of any kind directed at me from a male is extremely undesirable. I don't think that makes me homophobic. I'm certainly not scared of them.

[searock]

You feel the need to specify "some women", every ****ing time a say "women", no matter how obvious it is that I don't mean all women.

When I say "some" it's usually because I want to make sure that I am not generalizing. The times that I've corrected you are times in which it could have been misinterpreted.

sexual attention of any kind directed at me from a male is extremely undesirable. I don't think that makes me homophobic. I'm certainly not scared of them.

The thing is that it was extremely clear that it was NOT, nor could have been, romantic love, seeing as you two don't even know each other. The need to specify it is homophobic.

We all know that homophobia actually means "hate of homosexuals" and not "fear of homosexuals" (although the hate might arise from fear).
In this case, no sexual attention of any kind was being directed at you, even if he hadn't specified "no homo". Saying "I love you" in this context is hardly sexual.

[LukeBoy1994]

who cares? drop the matter

[searock]

You make me sad! So young and already so ugly as a person. Sigh.

[LukeBoy1994]

You make me sad! So young and already so ugly as a person. Sigh.

Only god can judge me

[BackUpOrGetStng]

[QUOTE=searock;958186]When I say "some" it's usually because I want to make sure that I am not generalizing. The times that I've corrected you are times in which it could have been misinterpreted.

Bullshit. Most recently, some sap was spouting off about one single, specific chick that was treating him a certain way and asked "why do women do this?" It was extremely clear to me, he did not mean all women.

Saying "no homo" is not hateful. Maybe a bit insensitive if you're a whiny twat, but certainly isn't strong enough to be hateful.

[searock]

Bullshit. Most recently, some sap was spouting off about one single, specific chick that was treating him a certain way and asked "why do women do this?" It was extremely clear to me, he did not mean all women.

It could have been interpreted as "why do all women?", it's a common figure of speech. And it was in the title of the thread - before he specified that he was talking about one single woman. He should have asked "Why does this woman do this?".

Saying "no homo" is not hateful. Maybe a bit insensitive if you're a whiny twat, but certainly isn't strong enough to be hateful.

It's homophobic, just like using "twat" as an insult is sexist. They both imply that "homos" and "twats" are negative things.

We'll never agree, so let's just end the discussion here.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Bitch, twat, and cunt(the movie Snatch comes to mind) are used commonly as insults for men as well. If you're going to use the common usage argument, it has to apply universally.

You are right, it was possible to interpret as "why do all women?", but that is not what he asked, and only someone looking for a reason to pontificate would think that. You literally, put words in his mouth..whether you thought it was common or not, that is what you did. Then used it

[searock]

Bitch, twat, and cunt(the movie Snatch comes to mind) are used commonly as insults for men as well. If you're going to use the common usage argument, it has to apply universally.

They are insults regardless of the gender of the person they are used against. The fact that a male person would feel insulted to be called a "girl" (or more vulgar synonyms like "cunt", "sissy" and so on) is sexism at its finest.

You are right, it was possible to interpret as "why do all women?", but that is not what he asked, and only someone looking for a reason to pontificate would think that. You literally, put words in his mouth..whether you thought it was common or not, that is what you did. Then used it

I repeatedly said, in that thread, that I knew that it's not what he meant. I actually pointed it out to him by saying something like: "You are actually asking about one specific woman, so you shouldn't use generalizations."

[BackUpOrGetStng]

They are insults regardless of the gender of the person they are used against. The fact that a male person would feel insulted to be called a "girl" (or more vulgar synonyms like "cunt", "sissy" and so on) is sexism at its finest.

Women would be offended if you called them men. It's a matter of being called something that you're not.

I repeatedly said, in that thread, that I knew that it's not what he meant. I actually pointed it out to him by saying something like: "You are actually asking about one specific woman, so you shouldn't use generalizations."

Yes, and I repeatedly said, that asking for general answers from other women, so he could try to draw a parallel to his situation and maybe figure out if he did something wrong was valid.

[searock]

Women would be offended if you called them men. It's a matter of being called something that you're not.

No, it isn't the same. Not by a long shot. It's about being called a girl/female. Think about it.

Yes, and I repeatedly said, that asking for general answers from other women, so he could try to draw a parallel to his situation and maybe figure out if he did something wrong was valid.

In this case he was generalizing, which was pointless and potentially harmful.

[searock]

LukeBoy1994 didn't do anything "terrible", but he is an ugly person, it's evident in the things he writes. I hope he's only doing it for "show" or something (as sad as that is, it's still better than him actually believing those things).

[BackUpOrGetStng]

They are used commonly obnoxious someone is(like when I refer to myself as a cunt). They started off as epithets for women, but through common usage have come to be used more colloquially.

I don't think it's pointless or harmful to try to draw a corollary with another's experience in order to gain insight into your own. To take another's word as gospel wouldn't be smart, but then again, that's why he didn't ask "why did this girl do this?". He knew that nobody could know what she was thinking so he tried to aggregate other stories and take a stab at why. It's a tactic that is ubiquitous in the field of analytics..which is exactly what he was doing.

How's he an ugly person? He didn't go for revenge like I suggested. Was it the "Plenty of bitches" comment?