Genders

[king of nowhere]

Then I suppose I'm demiromantic, since I need to befriend a girl first in order to develop other feelings for her later. Or, in the worst case, I need to fool miself into thinking I'm more friend with the girl than I actually am.

 

But c'mon, that seems way too specific a label to me. I mean, it's like we're taking everything that is slightly diffferent from what is considered "normal" and we're making up a name for it. And then we're taking all the possible variations in that, and naming those too. Do we really need all those names? We're seven billion people, no one is exactly normal, everyone is an individual, I feel we're soon going towards seven billions different terms.

 

Is naming all those subtle shades important? I am me. I am a particular person. I am unlike anybody else I ever met. I know a few people who come fairly close, but the existance of others similar to me doesn't make me anything more or less than I am.

 

It's telling that aromantic people will often feel like we're broken before we find a label for ourselves and realise that there are other people like us.

 

 

Well, I think that's the problem here. The need for a label. The need for identification. The need to be part of a group. We tell young people that they should grow up a certain way. Maybe we tell them they can choose a few templates. If they don't fit, they think there's something wrong, until they find a different template, one that fits them.

Oh, I've been through it myself. I struggled for a few years with the idea of being a nerd, as the concept is loosely defined and generally disparaging. I ended up realizing that whether I accepted the tag of nerd or not, it wouldn't change a whisker on the person I actually am. That's just a name. A tag we put on people to try to understand them. It doesn't make us what we are.It is no part of our identity.

Maybe we should just tell our young that they will grow up and gradually find their identity, in all things, and whatever it is it will be fine, unless they will be robbers or such, and if they happen to find others like them, great, but if they won't, then their life will be a bit harder, they will have to make choices, but there's  nothing wrong with them.

Maybe the problem with finding an identity is that we tell people that they should pick a label for themselves.

 

Or maybe not. The instinct to form tribes and clans is strong in the human race, so maybe the instinct to fit in a group is innate and not just rooted in culture, so people would still struggle to find acceptance.

Maybe I got over it because I like to think about my feelings, analyze them, dissect them, root out their causes, consequences, and relations to other feelings, and then if I find something to be stupid, or contradictory, I can stomp on it easily enough.

Like getting crushes for people I don't know, based just on how they look. I used to do that as a adolescent. But I decided it makes no sense. f you love a person you want to live with her, and living together is much more than just looking at each other. I once met a girl who was beautful, sweet and nice, and I fell for her, and it took me six months to realize that even if she had actually wanted me (she didn't) it would have never worked anyway, because we were too different on everything that matters. Ever since, I stopped getting crushes on girls jut because they're nice and pretty. Instead, I develop a different kind of feeling, which I call "interested", and it makes me want to know more about her. As I get to know the girl more, it gradually evolves into friendship, or attraction, or nothing, or a few other shades I have.

Yes, I consciously decided to alter the emotional way I respond to people because I analyzed my old way and didn't like it, and it actually worked. Most people I talked with can't understand the concept of changing how you feel because of how you think. Sometimes I feel like I'm some sort of alien. Good thing I accepted that a long time ago.

[maxal]

Then I suppose I'm demiromantic, since I need to befriend a girl first in order to develop other feelings for her later. Or, in the worst case, I need to fool miself into thinking I'm more friend with the girl than I actually am.

 

But c'mon, that seems way too specific a label to me. I mean, it's like we're taking everything that is slightly diffferent from what is considered "normal" and we're making up a name for it. And then we're taking all the possible variations in that, and naming those too. Do we really need all those names? We're seven billion people, no one is exactly normal, everyone is an individual, I feel we're soon going towards seven billions different terms.

 

I can't say how much I agree with all you said in this post. I too do not feel much for the labels which do not tell me much, Aren't we all demiromantic? Because seriously who ever ends up marrying his teenage crush? Not many people I'd wager... Also, not everyone is into the whole dating thing: some people, even as teenagers do not feel so much for it and wish for a more stable relationship. This is perfectly fine. It does not need a label: it is the same as stating I like Star Wars or I like cheesecake. It is a matter of preferences and we all are different. 

 

 

Is naming all those subtle shades important? I am me. I am a particular person. I am unlike anybody else I ever met. I know a few people who come fairly close, but the existance of others similar to me doesn't make me anything more or less than I am.

 

Rightly said. Last I checked, there was only one me. My husband even said if they wanted to, they would not be able to duplicate me. So there it is. We are all unique in our own personal ways.

 

 

Well, I think that's the problem here. The need for a label. The need for identification. The need to be part of a group. We tell young people that they should grow up a certain way. Maybe we tell them they can choose a few templates. If they don't fit, they think there's something wrong, until they find a different template, one that fits them.

Oh, I've been through it myself. I struggled for a few years with the idea of being a nerd, as the concept is loosely defined and generally disparaging. I ended up realizing that whether I accepted the tag of nerd or not, it wouldn't change a whisker on the person I actually am. That's just a name. A tag we put on people to try to understand them. It doesn't make us what we are.It is no part of our identity.

 

And we still tell our young that. I do tell my daughter she can be all that she wants, she can play with whichever toy fits her fantasy. She just started school. On her second day, I asked her: "What did you play with today?". Her answer was quite telling: "I played with the wooden block. We made a huge castle." I further questioned her: "Who did you play with? Boy friends or girl friends?". She promptly responded: "Boy friends." So there. Should I tell my 5 years old she should play with other toys to befit a fictionnary label or worst should I invent one for her? She is herself and trust me, there is only one of her. The world would not survive two     

 

Being a nerd is one huge label... At which point are you one and at which point are you not? Am I a nerd? If I ask my husband, he'd say yes. If I ask other people, they'd say no. What am I then? Me. Just simple me who sometimes enjoy nerdy things which does not prevent me from enjoying other less nerdy things. Can someone be a woman, read fantasy, enjoy cooking shows, be a part-time runner, send stuff into space, have children with a handy man husband all that at the same time? You'd be surprised how not uncommon this actually is..... 

 

The fact is I have never met anyone who actually fitted within the "template". Those I knew who befitted it as teenagers stray away from it as adults and those I knew who didn't actually follow it now.... So what is this supposed template? What does it entail?

 

It does not exist. 

 

 

Like getting crushes for people I don't know, based just on how they look. I used to do that as a adolescent. But I decided it makes no sense. f you love a person you want to live with her, and living together is much more than just looking at each other. I once met a girl who was beautful, sweet and nice, and I fell for her, and it took me six months to realize that even if she had actually wanted me (she didn't) it would have never worked anyway, because we were too different on everything that matters. Ever since, I stopped getting crushes on girls jut because they're nice and pretty. Instead, I develop a different kind of feeling, which I call "interested", and it makes me want to know more about her. As I get to know the girl more, it gradually evolves into friendship, or attraction, or nothing, or a few other shades I have.

Yes, I consciously decided to alter the emotional way I respond to people because I analyzed my old way and didn't like it, and it actually worked. Most people I talked with can't understand the concept of changing how you feel because of how you think. Sometimes I feel like I'm some sort of alien. Good thing I accepted that a long time ago.

 

Most people I know do not have crushes so to speak... One of my close friend has not find the right person until he was 38 years old... He's 45 now, happily within a relationship and he has 3 children. He wanted those things. He finally found the right person, but it sure did not start as a crush. It simply started with a single guy looking for a single woman who spotted a potential single woman who seemed to have stuff in common with him.... a few dates later and they both found out they liked each other...... No crushes, just two grown-ups getting to know each other and liking what they found out.

 

It does not need to be more complicated than that and it does not need a label onto it... What is normal? Gee, I think I have never met a "normal" person... We all are aliens in our own ways, but putting a label feels restrictive as if it were a disability... How can something be a disability when everyone feels the same way to one degree or another?

 

King of Nowhere, I truly hope you find the lucky one. I know a few single guys in their thirties going through about the same stuff for various reasons. Alternatively, many women in the same age range have similar thoughts. You just all need to get together 

 

I'm just lucky life send me my husband through the course of an infinite number of improbabilities and the help of a neon pink super-hero  I can only thank my lucky star.

[Claincy]

A few thoughts on labels (in my opinion):

-Are they necessary? No.

-Are there a slightly crazily large number of them? Yes

-Should you apply them to others without their consent? No, that can be harmful.

-Can they be beneficial? Yes.

-Labels can make it easier to find people similar to you if you're feeling alone/lost/confused/whatever. It's a lot easier to find a community with a single term to search for than trying to use a rough description.

-Labels can help someone who is struggling with their identity to better understand and define themselves. That isn't the case for everyone of course, but if it helps someone to think of themselves in terms of certain labels then good for them.

[Frosted Flakes]

It's always interesting to get to know the people with whom you share a community. I started reading this thread without an intent to post but, by the time I finished, I decided I'll share a little bit about myself since my demographic appears to be the least represented.

I am male.

Unlike the others who posted and immediately stipulated that they are male but not masculine, I am unashamedly masculine.

I am twenty eight, married, and the leader of my household. I do not mean to say that I am a tyrant, but in matters of importance I have the final word. I also manage my family's finances, investments, and budgets.

I labor endlessly for the good of my family. I enforce family policies. For example, my wife exercises with me three times a week. Some days she doesn't want to. Some days she wants to procrastinate, or make an excuse. I don't allow her to quit on herself and will compel her to exercise with me. Nothing intense; a 5k three times a week never hurt anyone.

I can already tell some of you probably don't like the sound of that. Forcing my wife to exercise? "It's her body, her choice!" right?

Well these things are her choice. She wants these things, but sometimes she has to rely on my strength and leadership to do them. It isn't easy to have a fight with your wife over something like that - but she told me, "Don't let me quit. Some days I'm going to want to. I'll make excuse and bitch at you, but don't let me quit."

So I take her at her word and don't let her quit.

Except when it comes to smoking - I made her quit doing that. And let me tell you, that was a struggle that really tested the strength of our bond! Today, however, she is extremely proud of her accomplishment and thanks me for helping her do it. Now we mock smokers together - the idea that someone would pay upwards of $300 a month to poison themselves is truly baffling.

I tell all you this because I think it's the easiest way to explain what kind of man I am. A leader.

Others have renounced traditional "masculine" interests, like sports, trucks, and drinking beer. I also hesitate to call them masculine. I would describe them as, "Interests more commonly held by men than women." To me, masculinity is about strength, leadership, and self improvement.

You can probably already tell that I love exercise. Exercise makes you stronger, like a better version of yourself. I can't understand people who are unwilling to be better versions of themselves.

I also love learning. And creativity. There is something ineffable about letting the mind explore and grow that strikes me as masculine. There are those that would say creativity is feminine - I disagree. The most influential creative people of all time have been overwhelmingly men.

Another personal virtue of mine are my protective instincts towards those I perceive to be less powerful or able than myself.

I disagree with a lot of what the rest of you believe. I may even mock some of your beliefs in my own social circles. I fully expect that, among your own social circles, men like myself are the subject of ridicule as well. But I tolerate no hostility in my presence. If I see someone being teased or victimized, I act. Where others will post a blog about how upset they were, and what they should have done about it, I act. Admittedly, this happens infrequently. Though I have physically thrown a friend of mine out of my home who was speaking disrespectfully about one of my guests.

There you have it. To summarize: I am a masculine, athletic husband who forces his wife into healthy habits (I want as much time with her as possible!) embraces and endorses traditional gender roles, has contempt for things I perceive to be weakness through shortcomings and compassion for weaknesses that cannot be helped.

And that's not even getting into politics!

Pick my brain, guys. Men like myself are on the decline and we won't be around forever. Some of you who dislike the patriarchy probably think that's a good thing. I think the effemination of men is one of the two greatest tradgedies of our time.

Edit: I can't believe this didn't occur to me earlier: my wife and I are like Dominion and Devotion and that's the way we like it. I think that's a better arrangement than two Devotions or two Dominions.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Frosted Flakes

[the winter system]

What's wrong with women being in charge? 

[king of nowhere]

(snip)

I think you got the wrong idea of our concept of gender equality. we certainly do not want weakened men, or men incapable of standing on their own. we instead want women to be also capable of doing that if they can. The concept is not "men should not be leaders", it is rather "people who are good at being leaders should be leaders". Or "people should do what they are good at, should pursue the interests they choose, rather than being constricted by social standards based on their sex".

Consider: if we lived in a matriarcal society, would you give up on trying to make your wife excercise because she would be supposed to be in charge?

[navybrandt]

What's wrong with women being in charge? 

Nothing! I don't think that's what he was saying. That's just what works for him and his relationship, and I think he's saying that's more common that most people want to admit. (That's what I got out of it, but I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth).

[Kaymyth]

I must admit, I find the idea of leadership being a "masculine" trait to be rather problematic.

 

This is why we have some of the workplace gender inequality issues that we do.  A man taking charge is considered being a leader.  A woman doing exactly the same thing is called "bossy" and a few other words that won't make it past the profanity filter.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

I must admit, I find the idea of leadership being a "masculine" trait to be rather problematic.

This is why we have some of the workplace gender inequality issues that we do. A man taking charge is considered being a leader. A woman doing exactly the same thing is called "bossy" and a few other words that won't make it past the profanity filter.

"Leadership" is a rather loaded term, which only compounds the problem when we make it a "masculine" trait. Leaders are supposed to be commanding, but also knowledgable enough to take charge and capable enough to remain that way. So when we see this as a masculine trait, it automatically becomes more difficult for women to be perceived as "leadership material." I work as a receptionist, and I can answer administrative questions better than my male coworkers. It's my job. Yet when a customer comes in, they almost always turn to one of my male coworkers rather than me. Even though he's more likely to stumble through an answer that I could have given in one concise sentence, they see my male coworkers as better leaders than me.

[RenegadeShroom]

Sorry folks, I'm just gonna jump in here to respond to the asexuality/aromanticism discussion from the last page. You all keep doing your thing.

 

@maxal:

 

The different subcategories of asexuality and aromanticism, plus the two themselves, are definitely not "teenage things". Even if those labels themselves have been created by teenagers*, it doesn't diminish their validity as labels. The ignorance of the population at large also doesn't invalidate aro and ace people. We exist, regardless of whether or not others believe it. And as a direct counter to the point, many aro and ace people are adults. People like to apply the low estimate of 1% of the population being asexual. Statistically speaking, that may be a small number, but in practise, 1% of the population, globally, is 70 million people. 

 

To be quite frank, not understanding why someone might need to come out as ace or aro is pretty expected. I wouldn't expect someone who is, presumably, heterosexual and cisgender, as well as allo**, to understand this without explanation. (I apologise if I've mislabeled you here, but this is definitely how you're coming off.) Those of us who aren't "normal" like the rest of you suffer for it, and many asexuals and aromantic people feel broken, like there's something wrong with them, until they discover the labels and identify themselves as such. Not being queer puts you in a position of never having to confront the problems in our society which alienate those of us who are queer, because it will never affect you personally. You will never be ostracised or discriminated against in any serious manner for being straight, cis or allo. 

 

---

 

* Though I doubt that that is the case; see autochorissexuality. The meaning of the term isn't relevant to the discussion, but it is yet another subcategory of asexuality, which was coined by a university professor named Anthony Bogaert.

 

** 'Allo' being someone who is not aro/ace. As in, allosexual or alloromantic.

 

@king of nowhere:

Then I suppose I'm demiromantic, since I need to befriend a girl first in order to develop other feelings for her later. Or, in the worst case, I need to fool miself into thinking I'm more friend with the girl than I actually am.

 

But c'mon, that seems way too specific a label to me. I mean, it's like we're taking everything that is slightly diffferent from what is considered "normal" and we're making up a name for it. And then we're taking all the possible variations in that, and naming those too. Do we really need all those names? We're seven billion people, no one is exactly normal, everyone is an individual, I feel we're soon going towards seven billions different terms.

 

The whole point of these labels is for you to do you. The label helps some people, other find it unnecessary. I should say however, that I may certainly be wrong in my explanation of demiromanticism. As someone who has never experienced romantic attraction, I can't tell you what it's like, I have to rely on others' explanations. I may well have misremembered. If you're interested to learn more about the aromantic spectrum, I encourage you to research it. 

 

I don't consider any of the labels I've heard of to date too specific. Sure, there's undoubtedly a line, but that line is, in my opinion, still far off. We're still doing broad categories. Demiromanticism, autochorissexual, whatever other 'specific' labels you may hear, are just subcategories on the aromantic and asexual spectra. Broadly, one can identify themselves as asexual, and if they feel the need to, specify that they're autochorissexual.

 

Still, it doesn't matter if someone's personal identity is too specific for other peoples' tastes. It's entirely up to them to define themselves, and these words existing lets us know that there's others out there like us, that we're not alone in these feelings, and most importantly, that we're not broken for being this way. 

 

Maybe the problem with finding an identity is that we tell people that they should pick a label for themselves.

 

Focusing specifically on this part of your post, I just have to say that specifically in relation to queer issues, identity is incredibly important to us. It's who we are when the rest of the world is telling us that it is wrong to be this way, that we are wrong for believing we are this way. It creates communities which can stand against the enormous social pressure that's brought down on queer people by the majority.

[Delightful]

I think the worst I've ever seen as sexual harrasment is "you're a girl playing videogames, you must be hot". Which is not all that bad.

Actually, that sexualises and objectifies women. They're there to play games, not for guys to decide how hot they are.

As sexual harassment goes, its obviously not as bad as rape threats etc., but thats not actually saying all that much.

Maxal: how did a neon pink hero help you find your husband? You can't casually mention that and then not tell the story! .

Edited September 24, 2015 by Delightful

[king of nowhere]

@king of nowhere:

The whole point of these labels is for you to do you. The label helps some people, other find it unnecessary.

I don't consider any of the labels I've heard of to date too specific. Sure, there's undoubtedly a line, but that line is, in my opinion, still far off. We're still doing broad categories. Demiromanticism, autochorissexual, whatever other 'specific' labels you may hear, are just subcategories on the aromantic and asexual spectra. Broadly, one can identify themselves as asexual, and if they feel the need to, specify that they're autochorissexual.

Focusing specifically on this part of your post, I just have to say that specifically in relation to queer issues, identity is incredibly important to us. It's who we are when the rest of the world is telling us that it is wrong to be this way, that we are wrong for believing we are this way. It creates communities which can stand against the enormous social pressure that's brought down on queer people by the majority.

What i am objecting to is the apparent need of finding others like you to define your identity. You make it appear that to have an identity you have to find someone else like you. phrases like

People like to apply the low estimate of 1% of the population being asexual. Statistically speaking, that may be a small number, but in practise, 1% of the population, globally, is 70 million people.

give a clear idea that you seem to think being part of a more numerous group is essential for identity.

That's the part I disagree with. That in order to be yourself, you need to be... like someone else. that's pretty much the opposite of identity, if you ask me. You go about how there's nothing wrong with being asexual, but you make it seem like you think there is nothing wrong only because you are 70 millions worldwide; if it was just you being the only asexual person on the planet, then it would be wrong; if you were 140 millions instead, then it would be even more right.

The idea I'm trying to pass is that you don't need to be like someone else to accept yourself. I can somewhat understand why social pressure can drive people to do that, but I still think it's overreacting. I also think it gets the wrong message: relying on numbers for it, "accept genderqueers of type X because they are many", impicitly states that it would be ok to discriminate even rarer minorities. It means every minority must fight their own battle. The essage to pass is instead "accept everybody as they are, as long as they're not hurting other people".

 

I am a nerd, which is much akin to be genderqueer under many aspects: you grow up feeling you don't fit with the people around you, most people will think there's something wrong with you, and you must find your romantic partner among a small minority of other people like you. But I never felt the need to fight for acceptance by people; I rather took the opposite approach of finding people who would accept me, and ignoring the rest. I was a nerd far earlier than i ever knew there was a word for it, and knowing such a word didn't change my life. actually, it was harder to accept myself as a nerd once i knew, because of the negative social connotation; accepting that I am as I am is easier than acccepting I belong to a shunned category. And last and more important, I never felt the need to state how many nerds there are to try to get accpetance. If I must explain myself, I say that I am happy to do what i do and going to parties or other stuff than normal people is supposed to do is terribly boring to me. The argument "we must be respected because we are many" just doesn't stick to me.

 

EDIT:

 

I think the worst I've ever seen as sexual harrasment is "you're a girl playing videogames, you must be hot". Which is not all that bad.

Actually, that sexualises and objectifies women. They're there to play games, not for guys to decide how hot they are.

As sexual harassment goes, its obviously not as bad as rape threats etc., but thats not actually saying all that much.

 

I beg to disagree. You are merely stating that the woman in question has a rare trait that you find attractive. It's a compliment. How can it be an objectification? It's the equivalent of a woman saying for example "oh, you are a man that likes cooking? That's nice, there aren't many of those". Which to me sounds like a compliment, not an objectification. In fact, it's the very opposite of objectification: if you were seeing the woman as a sexual object, you wouldn't care what she does in her free time.

The only inappropriate thing is the context  in which the compliment is used, because, I agree on that, people are there to play. And the fact  it is used on a total stranger. I feel it would be akin to telling a random passersby on the road "hey, you are very pretty". Which would be inappropriate, but absolutely nothing I would want to call "harrassmment" or "molestation".

 

Also, of course it depends strongly on how it is worded. It can be used as a nice compliment or as a rude appreciation depending on it. I don't remember ever seeing it used rudely. although a friend of mine says that she saw it happen a time when she used a nickname that sounded very girly, and she got plenty of attention. still, she didn't complain about anything particularly rude (and she would have; she likes sexual jokes and innuendos, soif she had been molested she'd have actually joked about it) so the main problem was the amount of messages she got.

 

Anyway, inappropriatedness is not rudeness, and rudeness is not sexual harrassment.

Edited September 24, 2015 by king of nowhere

[maxal]

Maxal: how did a neon pink hero help you find your husband? You can't casually mention that and then not tell the story! .

 

Ah that's a worthy story, but one for another day as I'll take me a while to type it all and it is late here. It may lighten the mood of this current topic.

[Kaymyth]

What i am objecting to is the apparent need of finding others like you to define your identity. You make it appear that to have an identity you have to find someone else like you.

 

*snip*

 

I think the point that you're missing is that it actually takes finding other people like you to discover that you aren't broken.  Most people on the aromantic/asexual spectrum really do believe that there's something wrong with them until they realize that there are other people like them.

 

Our culture places a high value on finding a romantic partner.  Every day, thousands of messages and cues bombard us to tell us that a happy relationship is the pinnacle of the human experience.  You can't watch a movie, read a book, even listen to the radio without love stories littering the ground like so many pebbles.  For people who don't feel that, who don't experience that level of attraction, it's a thousand messages a day telling them that there's something wrong with them.  It's not about being deliberately ostracized - it's about the entire world telling you that you're Doing It Wrong every single day of your life.

 

That is a rough gig, man.

 

 

 

Of course asexual and aromantic people feel lost and alone.  Of course they take solace in finding each other.  "There is a name for what I am!  It's a real thing!  I'm not broken!"  These are very powerful things to suddenly be able to say to yourself for the first time in your life.

[Delightful]

What i am objecting to is the apparent need of finding others like you to define your identity. You make it appear that to have an identity you have to find someone else like you. phrases like

give a clear idea that you seem to think being part of a more numerous group is essential for identity.

That's the part I disagree with. That in order to be yourself, you need to be... like someone else. that's pretty much the opposite of identity, if you ask me. You go about how there's nothing wrong with being asexual, but you make it seem like you think there is nothing wrong only because you are 70 millions worldwide; if it was just you being the only asexual person on the planet, then it would be wrong; if you were 140 millions instead, then it would be even more right.

The idea I'm trying to pass is that you don't need to be like someone else to accept yourself. I can somewhat understand why social pressure can drive people to do that, but I still think it's overreacting. I also think it gets the wrong message: relying on numbers for it, "accept genderqueers of type X because they are many", impicitly states that it would be ok to discriminate even rarer minorities. It means every minority must fight their own battle. The essage to pass is instead "accept everybody as they are, as long as they're not hurting other people".

I am a nerd, which is much akin to be genderqueer under many aspects: you grow up feeling you don't fit with the people around you, most people will think there's something wrong with you, and you must find your romantic partner among a small minority of other people like you. But I never felt the need to fight for acceptance by people; I rather took the opposite approach of finding people who would accept me, and ignoring the rest. I was a nerd far earlier than i ever knew there was a word for it, and knowing such a word didn't change my life. actually, it was harder to accept myself as a nerd once i knew, because of the negative social connotation; accepting that I am as I am is easier than acccepting I belong to a shunned category. And last and more important, I never felt the need to state how many nerds there are to try to get accpetance. If I must explain myself, I say that I am happy to do what i do and going to parties or other stuff than normal people is supposed to do is terribly boring to me. The argument "we must be respected because we are many" just doesn't stick to me.

EDIT:

I beg to disagree. You are merely stating that the woman in question has a rare trait that you find attractive. It's a compliment. How can it be an objectification? It's the equivalent of a woman saying for example "oh, you are a man that likes cooking? That's nice, there aren't many of those". Which to me sounds like a compliment, not an objectification. In fact, it's the very opposite of objectification: if you were seeing the woman as a sexual object, you wouldn't care what she does in her free time.

The only inappropriate thing is the context in which the compliment is used, because, I agree on that, people are there to play. And the fact it is used on a total stranger. I feel it would be akin to telling a random passersby on the road "hey, you are very pretty". Which would be inappropriate, but absolutely nothing I would want to call "harrassmment" or "molestation".

Also, of course it depends strongly on how it is worded. It can be used as a nice compliment or as a rude appreciation depending on it. I don't remember ever seeing it used rudely. although a friend of mine says that she saw it happen a time when she used a nickname that sounded very girly, and she got plenty of attention. still, she didn't complain about anything particularly rude (and she would have; she likes sexual jokes and innuendos, soif she had been molested she'd have actually joked about it) so the main problem was the amount of messages she got.

Anyway, inappropriatedness is not rudeness, and rudeness is not sexual harrassment.

There's a massive difference between your two cases.

"oh, you are a man that likes cooking? That's nice, there aren't many of those".

says "oh, here's a person with a useful skill, that's wonderful, that's an attractive quality.

Whereas, to me at least, "You're a girl who plays games you must be hot"

Says "oh. You're a girl. There aren't many girls who plays games. Because you're female, you must be sexy"

Or:

"You have a useful skill" vs "female! Sexy!"

I wouldn't go so far as to call it molestation, but its still not ok IMHO. To actually make it a compliment would go something like "you play really well. I find than an attractive trait in a woman."

Does that make sense?

Maxal, I eagerly await the day

Edit: I think part of what's bothering me here is how sexualised women are in games in general. The whole armour bra thing? It's plain stupid yo. Women aren't just pretty things to be looked at. We're people.

(I'm not directing that at you, king of nowhere. Just saying.)

Edited September 24, 2015 by Delightful

[ParadoxicalZen]

Defining any trait/skill/ability etc. as masculine or feminine is a bit of a wasted venture as you can practically justify anything as one or the other or even both, depending on a person's perspective. Even defining the terms masculine and feminine is simply put, pointless as they are abstract concepts (like 99% of things in human society) and assigning traits through Gender Dimorphism is equally fruitless, as you can find varying results in all parts of the animal kingdom, and evolution of genetics doesn't exactly support consistency in any one type).

 

In regards to gender, I prefer to embody the light Yin-Yang/Duality approach present in Mistborn and a very little of the The One Power philosophy in WoT in this situation. As far as labelling myself goes in any regard to my being, I'm not a big fan despite the fact of how useful it may be as I find it really limiting and constraining due to finding any term either devoid of meaning or it doesn't fit me properly. Granted, i'll do it should it be convenient or the situation requires to do so but otherwise I see no reason to. 

[FeatherWriter]

[sNIP]

 

Ugh, I hate it when Shroom makes good posts, because then I have to upvote him and upvoting Shroom is the WORST. You're my mortal enemy, Shroom. Please start being more terrible. Thanks.

 

That said, the stuff Shroom mentioned is all really good. Labels help some people immensely, others find them unnecessary. I know there's sometimes where I'll read something and think "Oh whoa, wait that sounds like me!" and it's either this moment of "I didn't know everyone else didn't feel that way..." or "I didn't realize there were other people who do feel that way!" Now, I'm not a huge proponent of labeling myself just for the sake of it, but I find they're useful in many situations.

 

In a discussion with people who are familiar those kinds of terms, I can say that I'm het (androphillic) cis female with some aro tendencies and a strong case of autochorissexuality. To people who understand that, they've now got a good snapshot of where I'm coming from. It's nice to be able to just use the term for it and not have to try to overly explain everything. I like that.

 

As for actually like, living by my labels, they're really not personally all that important to me. I've had people say, "oh, you're autochoris? so you consider yourself ace?" And I'm just "eh, not really." For some people having that community is a really big aspect of understanding who they are, but I don't join groups or anything because on one hand, I feel like I don't need them, and for another, I'm not really that far on the ace spectrum, just because I've got a few smudges here and there.

 

What i am objecting to is the apparent need of finding others like you to define your identity. You make it appear that to have an identity you have to find someone else like you. phrases like

give a clear idea that you seem to think being part of a more numerous group is essential for identity.

That's the part I disagree with. That in order to be yourself, you need to be... like someone else. that's pretty much the opposite of identity, if you ask me. You go about how there's nothing wrong with being asexual, but you make it seem like you think there is nothing wrong only because you are 70 millions worldwide; if it was just you being the only asexual person on the planet, then it would be wrong; if you were 140 millions instead, then it would be even more right.

The idea I'm trying to pass is that you don't need to be like someone else to accept yourself. I can somewhat understand why social pressure can drive people to do that, but I still think it's overreacting. I also think it gets the wrong message: relying on numbers for it, "accept genderqueers of type X because they are many", impicitly states that it would be ok to discriminate even rarer minorities. It means every minority must fight their own battle. The essage to pass is instead "accept everybody as they are, as long as they're not hurting other people".

 

I'm... not sure where you're getting the idea that people in marginalized groups only feel validated because there's other people like them. I mean, the reason people like labels and communities is... because not being alone is nice? Like, I'm really not sure what there is to disagree with here.

 

Like say this: Are there people who read Brandon's books who never join in fandom stuff, like 17S or Reddit or Tumblr? Sure. Are they less valid fans than those of us who do like to group together? No! Are we less valid fans because we here like to have other people around us who feel the same way about these books and talk about it? Nope! They're both two valid ways of having those kinds of experience. The people who like being in communities and using label things are just like fans of a work who go online and find the fandom. Whether or not you feel like you want to hear other people around you who feel the same way is a personal choice.

 

Also I know Shroom used the numbers argument because there are a lot of people out there who say "those people are such a tiny subset, there's hardly any, who cares." It's a good thing you don't see it that way, but it doesn't make the argument invalid when it's used against people who do. Numbers alone do not justify representation, of course, but in the face of someone who finds them important, it's a good statistic.

 

I am a nerd, which is much akin to be genderqueer under many aspects: you grow up feeling you don't fit with the people around you, most people will think there's something wrong with you, and you must find your romantic partner among a small minority of other people like you. But I never felt the need to fight for acceptance by people; I rather took the opposite approach of finding people who would accept me, and ignoring the rest. I was a nerd far earlier than i ever knew there was a word for it, and knowing such a word didn't change my life. actually, it was harder to accept myself as a nerd once i knew, because of the negative social connotation; accepting that I am as I am is easier than acccepting I belong to a shunned category. And last and more important, I never felt the need to state how many nerds there are to try to get accpetance. If I must explain myself, I say that I am happy to do what i do and going to parties or other stuff than normal people is supposed to do is terribly boring to me. The argument "we must be respected because we are many" just doesn't stick to me.

 

KoN... I'm not going to lie, I cringed reading that bolded sentence up there (bolding mine). Just, please be very, very careful about trying to say that you understand someone else's experiences based on some other unrelated experience. Yes, you can draw some similarities between the two, but they're wildly different. When you tell a genderqueer, or hey, any other kind of marginalized group that "you get it" because you're also a marginalized person as a nerd... Yeah, I've just gotta say it right out: you come across sounding like you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I'm sorry that's a really blunt way of putting it, but that was a really poor turn of phrase, and I want you to understand that.

 

It's especially bad when you're saying to a group "Well, I know you're telling me you feel this way, but I can say that you should actually be feeling this way, because I 'know what it's like' thanks to these." I'll come right and say it: you don't understand what it's like to be genderqueer. I don't understand what it's like to be genderqueer. I've had long discussions with genderqueer friends and, you know what? I'm still not qualified to speak on their behalf like that. Certainly not qualified to look at them and say "well actually you're doing your thing wrong."

 

To be honest, making value based judgements like "I had interests that were unpopular, and therefore I understand what it's like living in a society that refuses to acknowledge that I exist" is just naive. And... kinda rude. I mean, talk from your own experiences, sure, but don't think those experiences make you an expert on someone else's. Certainly not to the point that you think they're dealing with those experiences in the wrong way by looking for things like acceptance and validation.

 

I beg to disagree. You are merely stating that the woman in question has a rare trait that you find attractive. It's a compliment. How can it be an objectification? It's the equivalent of a woman saying for example "oh, you are a man that likes cooking? That's nice, there aren't many of those". Which to me sounds like a compliment, not an objectification. In fact, it's the very opposite of objectification: if you were seeing the woman as a sexual object, you wouldn't care what she does in her free time.

The only inappropriate thing is the context  in which the compliment is used, because, I agree on that, people are there to play. And the fact  it is used on a total stranger. I feel it would be akin to telling a random passersby on the road "hey, you are very pretty". Which would be inappropriate, but absolutely nothing I would want to call "harrassmment" or "molestation".

 

Also, of course it depends strongly on how it is worded. It can be used as a nice compliment or as a rude appreciation depending on it. I don't remember ever seeing it used rudely. although a friend of mine says that she saw it happen a time when she used a nickname that sounded very girly, and she got plenty of attention. still, she didn't complain about anything particularly rude (and she would have; she likes sexual jokes and innuendos, soif she had been molested she'd have actually joked about it) so the main problem was the amount of messages she got.

 

Anyway, inappropriatedness is not rudeness, and rudeness is not sexual harrassment.

 

I think Delightful already said most of what I wanted here, but another thing to point out is that most of the gamer guys who harrass gamer girls do so in very, very crude and unwelcoming ways. "Oh, dude, you're a girl? Dang, that's sexy. I'm gonna be thinking about you tonight when I'm alone." "Aw, take a pic shirtless for me!" "Hey, sweet thing, you sound like heaven over that headset." Amongst other much much lewder things that I cannot and will not type because they'd break 17S's codes of conduct and I'ma moderator. You get the gist.

 

If I'm playing Destiny and I ask a teammate to watch my back as I go in to capture a point, the last thing I want to hear over the mic is "Girl, I wouldn't take my eyes off your backside for a second." Or when I start talking, someone asks "Yo, like how old are you? What do you look like? I'm just trying to get a good idea of it."

 

I just wanted to play a game that I enjoyed, but suddenly I've become someone's sexual fantasy and they're taking every opportunity they have to let me know it. 

 

Now, I'm guessing you're not like that when you're telling girls that you like the fact that they play video games. You probably do mean it as a genuine, non-sexual compliment. Maybe you don't understand why girls act so rude about that sort of thing when you were only trying to be nice. But when you say that girls are hot for playing video games, all they hear is that kind of disgusting, lewd, catcalling harrassment. You say "Wow, girls who play video games are so hot"  and they're suddenly pissed off because "CAN'T I JUST PLAY ONE GAME WITHOUT SOMEONE SEXUALIZING ME, REALLY." Maybe you were just trying to be nice, but you sound way too much like the hordes of nasty creeps who definitely weren't. In the end, the potential niceness of the compliment is so heavily outweighed by how sick of it we all are, that it's just not good.

[skaa]

It's always interesting to get to know the people with whom you share a community. I started reading this thread without an intent to post but, by the time I finished, I decided I'll share a little bit about myself since my demographic appears to be the least represented.

I am male.

Unlike the others who posted and immediately stipulated that they are male but not masculine, I am unashamedly masculine.

I am twenty eight, married, and the leader of my household. I do not mean to say that I am a tyrant, but in matters of importance I have the final word. I also manage my family's finances, investments, and budgets.

...

Edit: I can't believe this didn't occur to me earlier: my wife and I are like Dominion and Devotion and that's the way we like it. I think that's a better arrangement than two Devotions or two Dominions.

 

While I agree with the others that there is nothing wrong with a woman being the leader in a relationship, it's obvious that your leadership role is something your wife happily accepts, and I find nothing wrong with that either. Congrats to both you and your wife for being able to thrive in gender roles that align with your culture's tradition.

 

 

I also love learning. And creativity. There is something ineffable about letting the mind explore and grow that strikes me as masculine. There are those that would say creativity is feminine - I disagree. The most influential creative people of all time have been overwhelmingly men.

 

I think labeling creativity and learning as either masculine and feminine only works in an environment where these traits are actively encouraged only in one sex, or is actively discouraged in the other. Personally, I see no value in calling Hildegard of Bingen, Murasaki Shikibu, Emmy Noether, Marie Curie, and every single learned and creative female I know "masculine" in the way they think, even if female scholars have been a minority for various reasons all throughout history.

 

But I appreciate people like you who proudly proclaim their love for intellectual pursuits, no matter their sex or their professed gender.

 

Also, I think it's perfectly fine to acknowledge the differences between the sexes: after all, animal physiology and behavior are greatly influenced by hormones, and men and women usually differ in that area. Nevertheless, I think it would be better for society to also acknowledge that rigid gender roles (leadership for the males, nurturing for the females, etc.) do not strictly follow from these sexual differences. Because while these roles may be convenient at times, it's important that those people who cannot or will not fulfill them shouldn't be made to feel somehow incomplete or less human.

Edited October 4, 2015 by skaa

[maxal]

 

I'm... not sure where you're getting the idea that people in marginalized groups only feel validated because there's other people like them. I mean, the reason people like labels and communities is... because not being alone is nice? Like, I'm really not sure what there is to disagree with here.

 

Like say this: Are there people who read Brandon's books who never join in fandom stuff, like 17S or Reddit or Tumblr? Sure. Are they less valid fans than those of us who do like to group together? No! Are we less valid fans because we here like to have other people around us who feel the same way about these books and talk about it? Nope! They're both two valid ways of having those kinds of experience. The people who like being in communities and using label things are just like fans of a work who go online and find the fandom. Whether or not you feel like you want to hear other people around you who feel the same way is a personal choice.

 

Also I know Shroom used the numbers argument because there are a lot of people out there who say "those people are such a tiny subset, there's hardly any, who cares." It's a good thing you don't see it that way, but it doesn't make the argument invalid when it's used against people who do. Numbers alone do not justify representation, of course, but in the face of someone who finds them important, it's a good statistic.

 

 

KoN... I'm not going to lie, I cringed reading that bolded sentence up there (bolding mine). Just, please be very, very careful about trying to say that you understand someone else's experiences based on some other unrelated experience. Yes, you can draw some similarities between the two, but they're wildly different. When you tell a genderqueer, or hey, any other kind of marginalized group that "you get it" because you're also a marginalized person as a nerd... Yeah, I've just gotta say it right out: you come across sounding like you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I'm sorry that's a really blunt way of putting it, but that was a really poor turn of phrase, and I want you to understand that.

 

It's especially bad when you're saying to a group "Well, I know you're telling me you feel this way, but I can say that you should actually be feeling this way, because I 'know what it's like' thanks to these." I'll come right and say it: you don't understand what it's like to be genderqueer. I don't understand what it's like to be genderqueer. I've had long discussions with genderqueer friends and, you know what? I'm still not qualified to speak on their behalf like that. Certainly not qualified to look at them and say "well actually you're doing your thing wrong."

 

You know, I doubt King of Nowhere intended to be offensive towards anyone. He has frequently talked how he has struggled, at times, to find his place in a world he felt he did not always belong and whereas his "issues" sound lesser to you than the "issues" of "truly marginalized" individuals does not mean they aren't there.

 

We can't be playing at comparing hardships and start to say who deserves to feel slighted and who doesn't. If something bothers someone, then it is worthy, independently of the issues others may be having. 

 

If King of Nowhere felt being a nerd was difficult to live with at times, if he states he has felt rejected, marginalized, then his feelings are justified and are a valid experience to share in the scope of this thread. The fact other people are more marginalized is pointless: life is not a spectrum where one gets to put a pin on its level on a scale from 1 to 10 of how they feel with respect to the average mold. You don't get brownie points because you rank higher giving you the right to use the proper label. 

 

There is no reason to come down on him. I felt he was trying to be understanding and nobody should be pulled down for it, because you feel he is not entitled enough to even try. The whole point of sharing life experience is to inspire others who may want to choose our paths, because we are the living proof it can be a success. He has never said all people feeling marginalized should do like him: he was simply sharing. Now I may be putting too many words into King of Nowhere's mouth: he'll correct me if I got it wrong, though I feel you are the one putting words he has not said into his mouth.

 

If that is peceived as rude, then we are tackling a whole new problem that goes beyond gender identity.

[Zathoth]

I think the point that you're missing is that it actually takes finding other people like you to discover that you aren't broken.  Most people on the aromantic/asexual spectrum really do believe that there's something wrong with them until they realize that there are other people like them.

 

Unless you are me, I thought there was something wrong with everyone else until I realized that aromantic was a thing. XD

[FeatherWriter]

You know, I doubt King of Nowhere intended to be offensive towards anyone. He has frequently talked how he has struggled, at times, to find his place in a world he felt he did not always belong and whereas his "issues" sound lesser to you than the "issues" of "truly marginalized" individuals does not mean they aren't there.

 

We can't be playing at comparing hardships and start to say who deserves to feel slighted and who doesn't. If something bothers someone, then it is worthy, independently of the issues others may be having. 

 

If King of Nowhere felt being a nerd was difficult to live with at times, if he states he has felt rejected, marginalized, then his feelings are justified and are a valid experience to share in the scope of this thread. The fact other people are more marginalized is pointless: life is not a spectrum where one gets to put a pin on its level on a scale from 1 to 10 of how they feel with respect to the average mold. You don't get brownie points because you rank higher giving you the right to use the proper label. 

 

There is no reason to come down on him. I felt he was trying to be understanding and nobody should be pulled down for it, because you feel he is not entitled enough to even try. The whole point of sharing life experience is to inspire others who may want to choose our paths, because we are the living proof it can be a success. He has never said all people feeling marginalized should do like him: he was simply sharing. Now I may be putting too many words into King of Nowhere's mouth: he'll correct me if I got it wrong, though I feel you are the one putting words he has not said into his mouth.

 

If that is peceived as rude, then we are tackling a whole new problem that goes beyond gender identity.

 

I wasn't trying to say that KoN isn't allowed to talk about his experiences. I was warning him that the way in which he was doing so would probably come across badly. My problem is not in him talking about the struggles he's faced as a nerd, at all. My issue was that, the way I was reading that post, it seemed like KoN was talking as though his experiences as a nerd qualified him to speak on the experiences of someone genderqueer (or any other marginalized group he's not a part of).

 

There's a big difference between "Oh, I had a similar experience to you when this happened, and I can empathize" and "Well, because I've had this experience, which is like yours, I can tell you how to solve your problem using my solution." I'm glad KoN has learned to live with his nerd-side and all the societal pressures that that inflicts. But when I read something like:

 

But I never felt the need to fight for acceptance by people; I rather took the opposite approach of finding people who would accept me, and ignoring the rest. I was a nerd far earlier than i ever knew there was a word for it, and knowing such a word didn't change my life. actually, it was harder to accept myself as a nerd once i knew, because of the negative social connotation; accepting that I am as I am is easier than acccepting I belong to a shunned category. And last and more important, I never felt the need to state how many nerds there are to try to get accpetance. If I must explain myself, I say that I am happy to do what i do and going to parties or other stuff than normal people is supposed to do is terribly boring to me. The argument "we must be respected because we are many" just doesn't stick to me.

 

That reads to me like "Well, this is how it was for me so you're doing it wrong when you try to use groups to make yourself feel better. Knowing people disliked 'nerds' was bad for me, so knowing that 'genderqueer' is a thing is bad for you. You should just be like me and accept yourself. I didn't need any of those things that you do, so my way is better."

 

Maybe that's not what KoN was trying to say. But that's how it read to me. And so, that's how I responded to it. Intentionality is nice, but intent means very little when you can't communicate that intent correctly to another person. If KoN did not intend to make it seem he was drawing from his experiences as an authority on the issue, then I feel compelled to let him know know that that's the way it's coming across. "Hey, this is what your post sounded like, and if you didn't mean it that way, maybe you should avoid talking like that in the future!"

 

If he did  intend to use his experiences as a nerd as a platform of authority by which he can advise and steer these other marginalized groups back onto the right path, then I also feel the need to respond and say that I don't think it's a valid correlation and it came across very rudely to me. Of course, I want to say that with respect and try to have an honest conversation, but I want to make sure that I'm representing my reactions faithfully and letting him know what I truly think about what was said.

 

I'm not trying to say he wasn't "oppressed" enough or tear him down for his experiences. I just want to let him know that from my perspective, I don't think those experiences qualified him to make the judgements and conclusions that he did.

[king of nowhere]

wow, a lot of things to reply to...

I think the point that you're missing is that it actually takes finding other people like you to discover that you aren't broken.  Most people on the aromantic/asexual spectrum really do believe that there's something wrong with them until they realize that there are other people like them.
 
Our culture places a high value on finding a romantic partner.  Every day, thousands of messages and cues bombard us to tell us that a happy relationship is the pinnacle of the human experience.  You can't watch a movie, read a book, even listen to the radio without love stories littering the ground like so many pebbles.

Yeah, I think that's wrong, too. I am happily single simply because I never found the right partner, but during my teens years I suffered a lot because of the message passed by society that i needed to have a girlfriend in order to be happy. Including plenty of that "I can't live without you" stuff that works in movies, but in real life can often lead to stalking. It also got me to see most girls around me as potential "targets", because I thought I had to find one - anyone - who wanted to be with me. Incidentally, my relations with girls vastly improved after I realized I didn't need one of them at all costs.
So, there's plenty of messages that society passes and that should be fixed.
 

There's a massive difference between your two cases.

"oh, you are a man that likes cooking? That's nice, there aren't many of those".
says "oh, here's a person with a useful skill, that's wonderful, that's an attractive quality.
Whereas, to me at least, "You're a girl who plays games you must be hot"
Says "oh. You're a girl. There aren't many girls who plays games. Because you're female, you must be sexy"

Or:
"You have a useful skill" vs "female! Sexy!"

Ok, I should have used something without practical applications, like "you are into fashion". Anyway, I read that in a totally different way:  too me, it means "you are a girl sharing my passion. That's nice". With some stronger connotations because it's a passion that is rare to find and it is considered unfeminine. But I guess it strongly depends on how it is worded. More on that as I reply to feather writer.
 

I'm... not sure where you're getting the idea that people in marginalized groups only feel validated because there's other people like them. I mean, the reason people like labels and communities is... because not being alone is nice? Like, I'm really not sure what there is to disagree with here.
 
Like say this: Are there people who read Brandon's books who never join in fandom stuff, like 17S or Reddit or Tumblr? Sure. Are they less valid fans than those of us who do like to group together? No! Are we less valid fans because we here like to have other people around us who feel the same way about these books and talk about it? Nope! They're both two valid ways of having those kinds of experience. The people who like being in communities and using label things are just like fans of a work who go online and find the fandom. Whether or not you feel like you want to hear other people around you who feel the same way is a personal choice.
 
Also I know Shroom used the numbers argument because there are a lot of people out there who say "those people are such a tiny subset, there's hardly any, who cares." It's a good thing you don't see it that way, but it doesn't make the argument invalid when it's used against people who do. Numbers alone do not justify representation, of course, but in the face of someone who finds them important, it's a good statistic.

yeah, that's a good argument. And I know it is. I just have a hard time accepting it. I mean, the society will respect a  minority more if it is more numerically consistent, and because of that minorities will try to use arguments that they are not so small. Which seem to imply that worth comes from numbers. Which is correct when it comes to voting, but not when it comes to personal inclinations. Still, the concept that if a minority has more right to exist if it is not so small is deeply rooted in the human psyche. It is easier to use it than to fight it. I just have a hard time pshycologically accepting it.
Also, it is true that finding similar people is nice. It's certainly good that for all those different kinds of genderqueers there are communities. I was simply stating that even if there is no such community, even if you are the onnly one on the face of earth, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with you.

KoN... I'm not going to lie, I cringed reading that bolded sentence up there (bolding mine). Just, please be very, very careful about trying to say that you understand someone else's experiences based on some other unrelated experience. Yes, you can draw some similarities between the two, but they're wildly different. When you tell a genderqueer, or hey, any other kind of marginalized group that "you get it" because you're also a marginalized person as a nerd... Yeah, I've just gotta say it right out: you come across sounding like you really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
I'm sorry that's a really blunt way of putting it, but that was a really poor turn of phrase, and I want you to understand that.
 
 

you are absolutely right, having experience at having marginalized in some way doesn't mean i do understand people who are marignalized in other, very different ways. I didn't want to imply that, at least not so strongly, and I apologize if I used a bad turn of words.

But then, isn't by comparing other's experiences with ours that we try to understand?

I think Delightful already said most of what I wanted here, but another thing to point out is that most of the gamer guys who harrass gamer girls do so in very, very crude and unwelcoming ways. "Oh, dude, you're a girl? Dang, that's sexy. I'm gonna be thinking about you tonight when I'm alone." "Aw, take a pic shirtless for me!" "Hey, sweet thing, you sound like heaven over that headset." Amongst other much much lewder things that I cannot and will not type because they'd break 17S's codes of conduct and I'ma moderator. You get the gist.
 

 Huh. I am aware that such things happen, but I have never seen it to such levels. That's pretty bad. The times I've seen it used, it was much less rude; it is possible there is more of that kind of rudeness in FPS games than elsewhere, because my experience is that the levels of bad behavior in online players varies strongly with different gaming communities. Yeah, I agree that was really bad behavior. When I said it was merely inappropriate, I was referring to the less rude comments.

P.S. I personally have never complimented any girl found on videogames; as I said, I don't consider it rude if the wording is nice, but I always consider it inappropriate when directed towards an unknown person. I have complimented in such a way girls I know in real life and am friendly with.

P.P.S I still consider "harrasment" to be excessive; in my vocabulary, "sexual harrassment" means a crime that people should be jailed for, while that was merely something they should be slapped for. It is however possible that it is a failure of my vocabulary.
 

You know, I doubt King of Nowhere intended to be offensive towards anyone.

 
 Yeah, thank you for the defence. Yes, what I was basically trying to do was saying "hey, I did that thing and it worked for me, you may want to try it". I may have expressed my case a bit too forcefully. It's difficult to convey the proper shades of forcefulness over an internet forum.

 

P.S. Edited cause I accidentally clicked submit when I was halfway through

Edited September 25, 2015 by king of nowhere

[Curious Anamaximder]

Unless you are me, I thought there was something wrong with everyone else until I realized that aromantic was a thing. XD

I felt the same way.

[DreamEternal]

So... I suppose I am ressurecting this thread?

Truth to be told, I am quite lost when it comes to my gender identity, as I've come to question many things about myself lately and some are much harder than others to find a satisfying answer for.

Currently, I think I am... how was it called? Demi-male? Yeah, maybe that. I don't really know. Maybe I am bigender instead, but I don't know, I only started to think about that recently.

It is hard for me to know for sure, specially when I question every conclusion I arrive to and try to seek its origins, to make sure I am not deceiving myself.

It is weird, this uncertain state. I am somewhat sure five or six months ago I would have answered "male" without hesitation, but I also didn't think that much about that before. Or maybe I just repressed my feminine side for a long time, since looking back I see some things I did and thought as a child that may be linked to my current questioning.

[Kaymyth]

So... I suppose I am ressurecting this thread?

Truth to be told, I am quite lost when it comes to my gender identity, as I've come to question many things about myself lately and some are much harder than others to find a satisfying answer for.

Currently, I think I am... how was it called? Demi-male? Yeah, maybe that. I don't really know. Maybe I am bigender instead, but I don't know, I only started to think about that recently.

It is hard for me to know for sure, specially when I question every conclusion I arrive to and try to seek its origins, to make sure I am not deceiving myself.

It is weird, this uncertain state. I am somewhat sure five or six months ago I would have answered "male" without hesitation, but I also didn't think that much about that before. Or maybe I just repressed my feminine side for a long time, since looking back I see some things I did and thought as a child that may be linked to my current questioning.

 

Genderfluid is totally a valid gender identity; a lot of this stuff isn't nearly as binary as the common culture seems to think it is.