Kevin Spacey accused of sexual assault on minor......and he's gay

[Belz...]

it's pretty easy to imagine something that doesn't turn anybody on

Given that excrement turns on certain people, I'd wager that you're wrong.

 

[dann]

He's right that almost everyone has done something of which they are ashamed. I don't follow the logic of Spacey not owning it.

Definitely, and very often of things that nobody should be ashamed of, being gay, for instance, but what is the relevance to this case? Was Spacey ever ashamed of what he did? Or does he just pretend to be ashamed because he was found out?

 

[Belz...]

Definitely, and very often of things that nobody should be ashamed of, being gay, for instance, but what is the relevance to this case? Was Spacey ever ashamed of what he did? Or does he just pretend to be ashamed because he was found out?

I'll take my chances with door #2, bob.

 

[dann]

Given that excrement turns on certain people, I'd wager that you're wrong.

That's because, like most people, I think, you seem to imagine that revulsion is the polar opposite of arousal, but if you look at the list of the 46 fetishes, that doesn't not seem to be the case at all.
A lot of closet gay men are revolted by the idea of going down on another man, but at the same time they're also aroused. Somebody who is not outright revolted at the the idea but who just doesn't find it in any way arousing, is probably less likely to be gay than the guy who is revolted (and (therefore?) also is aroused).

 

[Belz...]

That's because, like most people, I think, you seem to imagine that revulsion is the polar opposite of arousal, but if you look at the list of the 46 fetishes, that doesn't not seem to be the case at all.
A lot of closet gay men are revolted by the idea of going down on another man, but at the same time they're also aroused. Somebody who is not outright revolted at the the idea but who just doesn't find it in any way arousing, is probably less likely to be gay than the guy who is revolted (and (therefore?) also is aroused).

I'm not sure that I follow your point, dann. Could you elaborate on what you mean here, perhaps with an example or two?

 

[dann]

I'm not sure that I follow your point, dann. Could you elaborate on what you mean here, perhaps with an example or two?

I once overheard a conversation between two of my students, both male, about 18. One of them told the other that he had spent the weekend at his girlfriend's and hadn't brought any clothes so he had borrowed a pair of her panties and one of her shirts that wasn't too feminine. When the other boy heard about the panties, he was horrified and outspokenly revolted. And the guy with the girlfriend did not seem to be aroused at all, one way or the other, whereas the one who was revolted …
And it didn't appear to be a question of the girlfriend fishing a dirty pair of underwear out of the hamper, so the revulsion had nothing to do with questions of hygiene.
To the first guy it appeared to be nothing but a practical, albeit slightly unconventional, way of handling a practical problem. To the other guy, the idea of a man wearing an intimate piece of women's apparel was obviously humiliating - and thus arousing.

Women in general don't seem to find it humiliating to wear their boyfriends' or husbands' clothes or even underwear; they seem to find it neither revolting nor arousing, which is probably the reason why these items also don't tend to become fetishes to women. The other way round, it's much more likely to happen.
And I think that it would require an awful lot of embarrassing and painful strategy meetings at the Institute of Psychology to come up with a proper protocol for testing this hypothesis.

 

[Vixen]

I once overheard a conversation between two of my students, both male, about 18. One of them told the other that he had spent the weekend at his girlfriend's and hadn't brought any clothes so he had borrowed a pair of her panties and one of her shirts that wasn't too feminine. When the other boy heard about the panties, he was horrified and outspokenly revolted. And the guy with the girlfriend did not seem to be aroused at all, one way or the other, whereas the one who was revolted …
And it didn't appear to be a question of the girlfriend fishing a dirty pair of underwear out of the hamper, so the revulsion had nothing to do with questions of hygiene.
To the first guy it appeared to be nothing but a practical, albeit slightly unconventional, way of handling a practical problem. To the other guy, the idea of a man wearing an intimate piece of women's apparel was obviously humiliating - and thus arousing.

Women in general don't seem to find it humiliating to wear their boyfriends' or husbands' clothes or even underwear; they seem to find it neither revolting nor arousing, which is probably the reason why these items also don't tend to become fetishes to women. The other way round, it's much more likely to happen.
And I think that it would require an awful lot of embarrassing and painful strategy meetings at the Institute of Psychology to come up with a proper protocol for testing this hypothesis.

It's probably more a case of the male horror of being considered in anyway 'feminine'.

 

[dann]

I'll take my chances with door #2, bob.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Definitely, and very often of things that nobody should be ashamed of, being gay, for instance, but what is the relevance to this case? Was Spacey ever ashamed of what he did? Or does he just pretend to be ashamed because he was found out?[/QUOTE]

no one can read minds, but that would be my wager.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's probably more a case of the male horror of being considered in anyway 'feminine'.

Please don't consider yourself an expert on "male minds." I would never presume to do the reverse. Grant me the same consideration.

 

[Belz...]

I once overheard a conversation between two of my students, both male, about 18. One of them told the other that he had spent the weekend at his girlfriend's and hadn't brought any clothes so he had borrowed a pair of her panties and one of her shirts that wasn't too feminine. When the other boy heard about the panties, he was horrified and outspokenly revolted. And the guy with the girlfriend did not seem to be aroused at all, one way or the other, whereas the one who was revolted …
And it didn't appear to be a question of the girlfriend fishing a dirty pair of underwear out of the hamper, so the revulsion had nothing to do with questions of hygiene.
To the first guy it appeared to be nothing but a practical, albeit slightly unconventional, way of handling a practical problem. To the other guy, the idea of a man wearing an intimate piece of women's apparel was obviously humiliating - and thus arousing.

Women in general don't seem to find it humiliating to wear their boyfriends' or husbands' clothes or even underwear; they seem to find it neither revolting nor arousing, which is probably the reason why these items also don't tend to become fetishes to women. The other way round, it's much more likely to happen.
And I think that it would require an awful lot of embarrassing and painful strategy meetings at the Institute of Psychology to come up with a proper protocol for testing this hypothesis.

Yes but pleny of people are aroused by things that are not revolting, so I still don't see why you think you can find things that no one on Earth is, has been, or will be aroused by because of this. I'm not trying to be dense.

 

[dann]

It's probably more a case of the male horror of being considered in anyway 'feminine'.

They are connected, I think, but it's hard to tell exactly how. (And there's probably nothing exact about it anyway.) But I think that it is also related to the idea that women are inferior, i.e. the 'weaker sex', which is what causes the "male horror", which you seem to consider to be a natural thing (but I might be wrong!), in the first place, i.e. which makes the association with femininity embarrassing and humiliating. And we probably all consider this to be a natural thing. At least that seems to be the case if you look at popular culture. Go to 3.20:

 

[3point14]

So have I - also more than one.
And I couldn't/wouldn't accommodate them. It would have turned me off to try, or it might have made me laugh at the setup, which would probably have turned them off as well.

It takes all sorts, it really does.

I'm having difficulty with your difficulty understanding that some people like different things to other people.

No, in spite of Huffington Post's 46 Sexual Fetishes You've Never Heard of (which is also a lie, by the way, since most of us have heard about several of them), it's pretty easy to imagine something that doesn't turn anybody on,

Have you heard of Rule 34?

but even it weren't, it still wouldn't explain anything.

I'm not sure what there is to explain. It's like trying to explain why some prefer an orange drink to a strawberry drink, it's just a preference.


Some people like music you don't, some people like foods you don't, some people like holidays you don't and some people like leisure activities you don't.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that some people like sexual activities that you don't?

 

[dann]

Yes but pleny of people are aroused by things that are not revolting, so I still don't see why you think you can find things that no one on Earth is, has been, or will be aroused by because of this. I'm not trying to be dense.

Things like Danish furniture design? (and I am aware that wood (of the botanical kind) is mentioned in the Huffington article I linked to above)

Flower arranging?Probably very, very few, if any, and definitely much fewer than coprophiliacs even though flowers smell good!

And in spite of being aesthetically beautiful, fractal geometry doesn't doesn't seem to sexually arouse people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Things like Danish furniture design? (and I am aware that wood (of the botanical kind) is mentioned in the Huffington article I linked to above)

GIven the people who have sex with bridges and cars doesn't seem that weird. Why would architecture be ok and furniture not?

 

[dann]

I'm having difficulty with your difficulty understanding that some people like different things to other people.

And I'm having difficulty with your difficulty understanding that I have no difficulty whatsoever "understanding that some people like different things to other people."

Have you heard of Rule 34?

If it's about links to indecent sites, then, yes. But there's nothing indecent about the article/list, is there?!

I'm not sure what there is to explain. It's like trying to explain why some prefer an orange drink to a strawberry drink, it's just a preference.

Now you're not even trying! Sometimes people can actually tell you why they prefer one to the other. Why does that seem to be so incomprehensible to you?

Some people like music you don't, some people like foods you don't, some people like holidays you don't and some people like leisure activities you don't.

Yes, and so what?!

Is it such a stretch to imagine that some people like sexual activities that you don't?

I am beginning to doubt which planet you live on, but do I seem to have a hard time imagining that some like things that I don't, including sexual activities??!

 

[dann]

GIven the people who have sex with bridges and cars doesn't seem that weird. Why would architecture be ok and furniture not?

Who on earth said or implied anything about it being OK or not???!
(You should try to analyze this: Why do you think that I think so!)

 

[dann]

Have you heard of Rule 34?

OK, googled it, got it, but don't believe it!

 

[3point14]

And I'm having difficulty with your difficulty understanding that I have no difficulty whatsoever "understanding that some people like different things to other people."




If it's about links to indecent sites, then, yes. But there's nothing indecent about the article/list, is there?!




Now you're not even trying! Sometimes people can actually tell you why they prefer one to the other. Why does that seem to be so incomprehensible to you?




Yes, and so what?!




I am beginning to doubt which planet you live on, but do I seem to have a hard time imagining that some like things that I don't, including sexual activities??!

Crikey, I was just trying to have a conversation. I wasn't aware you were going to become quite so agitated about it.

I shall bow out.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who on earth said or implied anything about it being OK or not???!
(You should try to analyze this: Why do you think that I think so!)

If people are sexually aroused by buildings and have sex with cars why not furniture?