Gay press loses its mind when it discovers gay man starting a male-only camping club

[Loren Pechtel]

You were not responding to my position, then. It doesn't matter whether or that the NCAA adopted earlier models of creating divisions. What matters is, as you rightfully first stated, that the NCAA divisions are their own business.

And as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is hormone exposures that inform any need for divisions at all. And because it is hormone exposure that informs the division, it should be hormone exposure that delineates the actual divisions. Not "sex".

Well, just to nitpick, hormone exposure itself is just another imperfect index. Rather, it is the developmental, physiological outcome that ultimately matters. So, just a quick example, hormone exposure to an androgen-insensitive person probably won't matter here. But I do agree, exposure to androgens during adolescence and puberty are probably good indices.

Yup. XY women perform athletically the same as XX women.

 

[Metaphor]

You are saying that all strictly homosexual people, and all strictly heterosexual people have fetishes. That they are all exhibiting sexual deviancies. That's just beyond merely insulting. It is massively degrading and regressive beyond conscience.

The problem is that you are assuming "fetish" = "sexual deviant". It's commonly misused that way but he's using it correctly.

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fetish
[h=1]fetish[/h]
[h=3]or fet·ich[/h][ fet-ish, fee-tish ]



See synonyms for fetish on Thesaurus.com

---

[h=3]noun[/h]an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.

any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.

Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

fetish

noun [ C ]
uk
/ˈfet.ɪʃ/ us
/ˈfet̬.ɪʃ/
[h=3]fetish noun [C] (INTEREST)[/h]
psychology a sexual interest in an object or a part of the body other than the sexual organs:


a rubber/foot fetish
He has a fetish for/about high heels.



psychology an activity or object that you are so interested in that you spend an unreasonable amount of time thinking about it or doing it:


She makes a fetish of organization - it's quite obsessive.
He has a fetish for/about cleanliness.

 

[Politesse]

There is no government legislation against having an all-gay campground. And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.

What? Did we just imagine Biden's EO?

Yes, you seem to have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fetish
[h=1]fetish[/h]
[h=3]or fet·ich[/h][ fet-ish, fee-tish ]



See synonyms for fetish on Thesaurus.com

---

[h=3]noun[/h]an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.

any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.

Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

fetish

noun [ C ]
uk
/ˈfet.ɪʃ/ us
/ˈfet̬.ɪʃ/
[h=3]fetish noun [C] (INTEREST)[/h]
psychology a sexual interest in an object or a part of the body other than the sexual organs:


a rubber/foot fetish
He has a fetish for/about high heels.



psychology an activity or object that you are so interested in that you spend an unreasonable amount of time thinking about it or doing it:


She makes a fetish of organization - it's quite obsessive.
He has a fetish for/about cleanliness.

I don't see that you are rebutting it here--we are using the psychological definition. The objects are attractive male appearing body and attractive female appearing body.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

I don't see that you are rebutting it here--we are using the psychological definition. The objects are attractive male appearing body and attractive female appearing body.

Yeah, granted they have cut out this nonsensical aspect with regards to genitals specifically in the "dictionary" definition, something which I reject. It is special pleading. It is a sexual fixation.

 

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

I don't see that you are rebutting it here--we are using the psychological definition. The objects are attractive male appearing body and attractive female appearing body.

Gospa moja Loren, getting sexually aroused by an 'attractive male appearing body' or an 'attractive female appearing body' is not a fetish. Good fucking lord.

 

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

I don't see that you are rebutting it here--we are using the psychological definition. The objects are attractive male appearing body and attractive female appearing body.

Yeah, granted they have cut out this nonsensical aspect with regards to genitals specifically in the "dictionary" definition, something which I reject. It is special pleading. It is a sexual fixation.

Jarhyn calls a dictionary definition 'special pleading', and then expects us to believe his own definition isn't 'special pleading'.

And still silence from Jarhyn on why it's a-okay to reject women from a campsite because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, but it's not okay to reject men without penises because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, and the group who is not aroused by men without penises ought be socially censured.

 

[repoman]

You were not responding to my position, then. It doesn't matter whether or that the NCAA adopted earlier models of creating divisions. What matters is, as you rightfully first stated, that the NCAA divisions are their own business.

And as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is hormone exposures that inform any need for divisions at all. And because it is hormone exposure that informs the division, it should be hormone exposure that delineates the actual divisions. Not "sex".

Well, just to nitpick, hormone exposure itself is just another imperfect index. Rather, it is the developmental, physiological outcome that ultimately matters. So, just a quick example, hormone exposure to an androgen-insensitive person probably won't matter here. But I do agree, exposure to androgens during adolescence and puberty are probably good indices.

Yup. XY women perform athletically the same as XX women.

you have to be sarcastic here

 

[Jarhyn]

Yup. XY women perform athletically the same as XX women.

you have to be sarcastic here

The problem with either interpretation, frankly, is that they both entirely run roughshod past the important part where some XY women have been on testosterone blockers since their balls turned on, and some have been on it for decades, and there's a lot of difference there.

This entire exchange about X and Y is idiotic because it is still about the actual physiological effects of testosterone, not a chromosome specifically.

Some XY women will perform better because of that. Some won't. Some XY women will perform better because they're good at the sport. Some will perform worse, because they're worse at the sport.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jarhyn is wrong and so are you.



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fetish

I don't see that you are rebutting it here--we are using the psychological definition. The objects are attractive male appearing body and attractive female appearing body.

Gospa moja Loren, getting sexually aroused by an 'attractive male appearing body' or an 'attractive female appearing body' is not a fetish. Good fucking lord.

We are using the term in the psychological context where it means something required for sexual arousal, not in the common-use context of very deviant sexual behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, granted they have cut out this nonsensical aspect with regards to genitals specifically in the "dictionary" definition, something which I reject. It is special pleading. It is a sexual fixation.

Jarhyn calls a dictionary definition 'special pleading', and then expects us to believe his own definition isn't 'special pleading'.

And still silence from Jarhyn on why it's a-okay to reject women from a campsite because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, but it's not okay to reject men without penises because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, and the group who is not aroused by men without penises ought be socially censured.

He's calling the carve-out for genitals a special pleading (and I agree with him), but note that he didn't say "penis fetish", he said "penis kink", the definition of fetish is irrelevant to that. And the carve-out is for genitals, not overall appearance--it has no bearing on this issue.

 

[Metaphor]

Gospa moja Loren, getting sexually aroused by an 'attractive male appearing body' or an 'attractive female appearing body' is not a fetish. Good fucking lord.

We are using the term in the psychological context where it means something required for sexual arousal, not in the common-use context of very deviant sexual behavior.

You are wrong about both contexts.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, granted they have cut out this nonsensical aspect with regards to genitals specifically in the "dictionary" definition, something which I reject. It is special pleading. It is a sexual fixation.

Jarhyn calls a dictionary definition 'special pleading', and then expects us to believe his own definition isn't 'special pleading'.

And still silence from Jarhyn on why it's a-okay to reject women from a campsite because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, but it's not okay to reject men without penises because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, and the group who is not aroused by men without penises ought be socially censured.

He's calling the carve-out for genitals a special pleading (and I agree with him), but note that he didn't say "penis fetish", he said "penis kink", the definition of fetish is irrelevant to that. And the carve-out is for genitals, not overall appearance--it has no bearing on this issue.

It isn't special pleading, it's a fucking definition.

This is like calling the definition of pica 'special pleading' because it tries to distinguish between non-disordered eating and pica by referring to the 'non-nutritive' properties of the things people with pica eat.Stop treating Jarhyn's delusional and solipsistic redefinitions of words as if they were anything other than delusional and solipsistic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. XY women perform athletically the same as XX women.

you have to be sarcastic here

No, I'm being completely serious.

Note that I am not talking about transwomen--note that I have been saying they get an advantage from their prior life with testosterone. I'm talking about women who are XY but androgen-insensitive. They often have reproductive system issues but they are entirely female.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, granted they have cut out this nonsensical aspect with regards to genitals specifically in the "dictionary" definition, something which I reject. It is special pleading. It is a sexual fixation.

Jarhyn calls a dictionary definition 'special pleading', and then expects us to believe his own definition isn't 'special pleading'.

And still silence from Jarhyn on why it's a-okay to reject women from a campsite because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, but it's not okay to reject men without penises because you don't want to see them naked or have sex with them, and the group who is not aroused by men without penises ought be socially censured.

He's calling the carve-out for genitals a special pleading (and I agree with him), but note that he didn't say "penis fetish", he said "penis kink", the definition of fetish is irrelevant to that. And the carve-out is for genitals, not overall appearance--it has no bearing on this issue.

Yeah, like I would have a lot more latitude to accept the existence of this camping trip free of criticism were they to stop trying to represent "gay men" with their exclusionary behavior and instead reduced their expression of representation to express their collective cock fetishes in addition to their call-out for gay men.

Now if it's a public event, though, then that only extends so far as branding; at that point they would have to accept all comers (cummers?)

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, like I would have a lot more latitude to accept the existence of this camping trip free of criticism were they to stop trying to represent "gay men"

"They" didn't do any such thing. They did not claim to represent all gay men.

with their exclusionary behavior

Fucking LOL. Gay men exclude women, yet you don't find that exclusion problematic.

and instead reduced their expression of representation to express their collective cock fetishes in addition to their call-out for gay men.

Jarhyn demonstrating again that he doesn't know what words in English mean.

Now if it's a public event,

Jarhyn demonstrating he didn't even read the original article.

 

[TomC]

Yeah, like I would have a lot more latitude to accept the existence of this camping trip free of criticism were they to stop trying to represent "gay men" with their exclusionary behavior

It's not a camping trip. It's campground. It caters to a specific clientele and the owners are being clear about who qualifies.
They hardly "represent gay men".

Back when I occasionally went to Camp-It, it was well known as a men's clothing optional establishment. The "men's clothing optional" part was how they could charge double the going rate for their campsites. Straight guys and women wouldn't pay that much, because they wouldn't have any interest in gay guys cavorting in the buff.

This reminded me a gym here in town, Ladies Only. I googled them, but apparently they were victims of C19. It's gone. I'd have to drive an hour to get to the nearest exclusionary work out facilities. I wanted to ask if they had an official policy concerning LBGTQ. Alas...

My vague memory, from years ago, was an aerobics teacher there. I asked her about lesbian members, and she dismissed that as a problem. "Of course lesbians come here. Doh! They don't act any different from anybody else, and nobody cares". But now I'm wondering, "What if somebody joined and started presenting their ladydique?"
Tom

 

[Terrell]

Oh get off it.

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

And you can't even seem to take the two seconds to understand what was written: that being gay is not about penises and vaginas. It's about having an attraction to men.

And the vast majority of men who have attractions to men do not display this fetish.

Okay. I am really sick and tired of Jarhyn talking about his sexual practices and fetishes (which he appears to do at the slightest opportunity), but I can say something to this ridiculous assertion that gay men don't like penises. I don't need to say this to the gay men in the thread either, who can see Jarhyn's deeply mistaken delusions about the gay landscape for themselves.

Gay men love penises, and it's because gay men are attracted to the sex 'male', and penises go along with that. If you watch any gay porn, you will no doubt find that penises feature heavily, and bigger penises are the most favoured, because having a penis is something a male has and gay men are sexually attracted to men and their penises. If you go on a gay hookup app, sometimes men greet you with 'hi' and sometimes men greet you with 'u hung?'

It beggars belief that Jarhyn is trying to tell people otherwise. Jarhyn has described multiple of his own kinks (like being a furry), and now he has re-cast liking penises as a kink.

Agreed. I would lose attraction to a woman, that I'd formerly found attractive, as soon as I found out she didn't have a vagina.

 

[Gun Nut]

Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.

That's ironic. It's hard to think what a historically literate Jew might think of the black person's plight, being the Jews were enslaved for THOUSANDS of years prior to Moses leading them away (and then for 5 years again around WWII by the Germans)... and black people were enslaved by other black people in Africa also for THOUSANDS of years... and America was one of their newest and last customers... for 400 years. I guess Jews had more time to get over it, so to speak? And black people hate Africa way more than America, for starting and continuing it, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. I would lose attraction to a woman, that I'd formerly found attractive, as soon as I found out she didn't have a vagina.

Seconded. I'm pure straight--you don't have the right plumbing, I have no sexual interest. Doesn't mean you aren't a good person, just not a potential bedmate.