The House of Hades
discussion
NICO… YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT O.o
Huh. I feel mentally stimulated from reading this argument. Sadly I feel after reading through and somewhat agreeing and disagreeing with either argument, I really have nothing to say that has not already been said far better than I could have said it.
Alyssa wrote: "deleted user wrote: "Ariel wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "Not reading the last book because of Nico's little "episode". This is inappropriate, and I will have nothing to do with an author who supports gay..."It would defeat the purpose of opinions if they were all positive.
Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.However having sex (or as I should really say, "trying" to have sex) when you are gay is never ordered toward creation, thus making it always only for the selfish reasons."
I mean, most people don't have sex for the purpose of having kids. There are way more people who do it for the pleasure than those who do it to conceive. Whether you think that is inherently selfish or not is up to you, but personally, I don't believe that any form of pleasure, whether it be having sex, going to an amusement park, watching TV, or reading books, etc... are all automatically selfish. And if it is, then I am selfish and proud.
Brown wrote: "Giraffes engage in homosexual *behavior*, but for completely different reasons than humans, such as dominance. They also drink pee."
Well, exactly. One of those reasons for humans to do so is love. I'm pretty sure that there are homosexual couples out there who can be in a relationship without having sex. And there is homosexual behavior other than sex, like kissing / hugging / holding hands, which is literally the same thing as heterosexual behavior...just between two of the same gender. And that doesn't take away from the fact that homosexual behavior is common in nature, even if it isn't based on love.
Brown wrote: "You're main point seems to be mainly that I don't have a right to tell people what to do.
I'm not right now. Or should I say, I CAN not, right now if I wanted. I'm merely discussing a viewpoint on a goodreads forum. "
I'm glad!! LOL I kinda got the impression you told this kind of stuff to everyone but it's nice to know you aren't shoving your opinions down other peoples throat. I respect that! :D
Brown wrote: "COMPLETELY independent from people's personal decisions, do you believe this choice is always automatically good, just because it is personal?
There is no such thing as a feeling that in itself forces people to be "with" each other. That part is a choice that you make with your free will. So I will never fall for that argument about "what if they love each other and it's not about sex?"
That is called FRIENDSHIP, unless you CHOOSE to make it something more. Nobody HAS to make that CHOICE, ever."
Nope! Everyone has made a bad personal decision in their life at one time or another.
Also, I would disagree with your black and white dichotomy of friendship VS. tru soul mates~~~
I believe that there is a distinction between loving someone and being in love. Trust me -- I do not want to have sex with my friends. But I do love them.
I know plenty of couples who started out as best friends, but they wanted more, and took their relationship to the next level. Now, you may cite that as an example of everyone putting romantic labels on things, but I've seen some of my best friends break down in tears because they wanted something MORE than friendship on a deeply intimate level. Staying "just friends" just made them sadder, and made them long for something more. And this is messy, and conversely, many people fight their own romantic feelings and stay friends BECAUSE they don't want to mess up their friendship. And furthermore, I don't think anything told them that just because they were best friends with someone meant that they were required to make it romantic. It's literally just their own emotions.
And vice versa, I know plenty of people who have been best friends (whether it is between two of the same or different gender) and felt no inclination or deep angst or whatever to make their relationship romantic. See, in these cases, nothing was telling them to go into a romantic relationship (feeling wise) and they didn't. I would understand your point more if I have ever known anyone who felt that it was required for them to become romantic with anyone they were friends with. I certainly haven't felt that.
Honestly, I think it, again, depends on the situation. Some friendships may evolve to something more, and some may not.
Personally, I don't think that you can force or not force yourself to love anyone, and I don't believe that free will plays that big of a part in love, in the sense that I could not stop loving my parents because I was told not to or didn't feel like it. Likewise, I couldn't start loving someone just because I felt it was required. I don't think love has an on or off switch.
Are casual relationships / meaningless sex your main concern? Because that's the impression I'm getting right now.
Brown wrote: "That said, this argument really is about sex in the end. Nobody ever had a problem with anything else: just the turning everything romantic/sexual.
It turns sex into something just for pleasure, when it should be for two things:
1.pleasure/closeness
2. being open to life
The absence of either is a tragedy, and not something to seek out.
With the absence of the first, we get things like rape.
It is just as bad when you make it ONLY about pleasure."
I think that was kind of my point? Earlier, you said having sex for pleasure was selfishness, but a lot of people regard sex for pleasure AND closeness / intimacy, as you pointed out. I'm kind of confused, because I feel like you just contradicted yourself. Obviously, pleasure is a big part of sex. Also, intimacy is too. Is your problem mainly with those who have meaningless sex and aren't intimate with their sexual partners? What is your view on those who have sex for pleasure and closeness and are "open to life"? Would you say that isn't selfish then? Also, can you elaborate on "open to life"? It seems kind of vague.
As for rape, just because there is pleasure involved doesn't make it rape. Rape is when sex or sexual behavior is non consensual. Consent is key. And pleasure =/= consent.
Brown wrote: "If it WERE only about pleasure, would you be prepared to use that argument to defend incest, porn, sex with animals, etc? Why would or wouldn't you draw the line at any of those, but not sodomy?
And furthermore, if it is only about pleasure, why do you fight for it so desperately? Is it because deep down we see it IS about more than that? Something that certain types of relationships can only mock and pervert? What is that thing?
It is the giving of your total self, which you can only fully do by being open to new life. While not the ONLY point of sex, it is a HUGE part of it (the real willingness to create life together)."
I don't think people having gay sex is going to harm anyone but themselves / sometimes not even themselves. In incest, other than the major ew factor, it's bad for genetics, and there are actually biological elements that attempt to make sure that incest does not happen, which is why the majority of people are not attracted to their siblings. For porn, as long as its consensual, I don't really care. It's their life, and they can make a living however they choose fit. As for bestiality, it's definitely not consensual, and it can majorly traumatize the animal, and even it didn't, I'd argue that connecting gay sex with bestiality is kind of a large stretch, because A) one is at least within a species, and B) one is not. I'd call it simple human decency to not do incest or bestiality.
Brown wrote: "Nobody HAS to have sex. Sometimes there is no reason for it. Making it into so much of a priority that we pretend body parts fit together that can't is called making it too much of a priority. It makes us slaves to our own passions. It is what truly puts us in a box, just as much as believing we should just be able to look at porn because we were "born" to like it.
Nobody deserves to be lied to and told that!
The gay agenda is one that tries to ride the coat tails of other revolutions: freedom from slavery, women's rights. It has to be looked at for what it really is. It's history is quite different than how it is portrayed by its many biased advocates. "
This is weird, because I think my upcoming argument might be kind of paradoxical.
1) Sadly, modern pop culture places an extreme amount of emphasis on sex and drugs and the objectification of women (and men). So I do agree that is problematic.
2) However, I do truly believe in the individuals' choice (whether it be harmful or beneficial), as you can CLEARLY tell (LOOOL), so honestly, I'm not going shame anyone for having sex, as long as it's consensual.
3) The paradoxical part ---
Funnily, while sex does have an emphasis on modern society, women are still actively shamed for engaging in sexual conduct (i.e. slut shaming). On the contrary, men are usually praised for being promiscuous and being a "player".
So while I do agree with you that sex is far too prioritized in society and that isn't exactly a good thing, I don't think that being super conservative about it will do anyone favors.
Also, there are these things called hormones. I'm pretty sure its impossible for someone to not feel ANY sexual desire at all. I don't think people only want to have sex because society tells them to (which is kinda like what??? because slut shaming still exists????). I'm pretty sure even in the ol' super conservative days a few centuries back, people still had sex.
And I disagree with you that gay rights is any different from civil rights or women's rights. As I see it, it's just a movement of human beings trying to have equal opportunities to the rest of the world. Maybe you don't, and while I may disagree with you, that's ok! I just don't get why people are so opposed to it when it doesn't even affect them. I really disagree with the notion that being exposed to non-straight / cis people makes you that way. The only reason there seems to be more LGBT people is because more people feel like they can come out and be accepted than before.
And I rather do like your posts tbh. They make me think of things I haven't thought of before. They're very intellectually stimulating (:
WHOA. I haven't been on this thread since may 7 - that's still only the top of the page - and the debate has taken such a different path.Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay because they were rejected by the opposite sex - I have no idea where in Hades you got that idea.
Cecerose: WOW. *vigorous applause* And I thought my posts were long.
Brown: I still think you're missing the point slightly but at least you unlike many of the others have evidence to back up your arguments (some of which I utterly agree with). I would like to respond to all your recent posts but I cut myself and it's bleeding more than I expected so you may have to wait a while. Thank you for making me think more about this topic than I would usually.
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.
However having sex (or as I should really say, "trying" to have sex..."
I think you kind of misunderstood what I was saying about pleasure.
It's NOT wrong. It IS a huge part of sex. My point was that there are TWO important things: pleasure and being open to life.
My point about rape was that it can be an example of the consequences of taking out the element of pleasure/wanting to be close to each other.
As for being open to life, I mean embracing the possibility that you could potentially be having children with that person. I think a huge part of why nature caused it to be that way is to keep us from becoming too selfish about it. Sex should be the least selfish thing: giving yourself completely.
But yes, some people do abuse it. Just like alcohol is natural and people always have and will abuse that too. Or even food (look at fat people).
For things like incest/bestiality you can still see how they are a problem. Throughout history it has usually been the same for homosexuality. Right now we are going through a time that over-glorifies sex and is only continuing to get worse. When children are told to put their "Sexual orientations" in their website bios, I think we have a problem.
We just make too big a deal of it for no good reason.
The same goes (on a lesser scale) for caring too much about kissing and cuddling. When did that become so important? It's an issue I actually had with this series for a long time. Any romantic actions are still actions. We have free will to choose our actions.
Whether it be kids on an adventure who focus unnecessarily on cuddling and holding hands, or adults in relationships unnecessarily focusing on sex, my question is why?
You might say it doesn't matter. It's their choice. I know that, but I think it's a dumb choice. I want someone to explain to me how it isn't.
Isn't it just like building a house on the sand? If we glorify only the "fun" part, then isn't it just like "a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere?"
Like C.S Lewis said, "It's on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.” But the feelings of pleasure are not an end in themselves.
That would be a very shallow view of love.
I think people need to be told they deserve better ways of seeking out pleasure then. Maybe they SHOULD go to the amusement park instead. XP
"Crushes" are something that are SO abstract and hard to talk about. One person might think something is a crush, and someone else might call something completely different a crush. It's an idea that causes a lot of problems...
Many times, I've noticed that when someone has a "crush," the person they have the crush on is not exactly the way they are imagining in their head in the first place. Rather they have a crush on their own image of them.
The bottom line is, it's messy, it's indefinite, it doesn't have to be important. The same is true about all feelings. They are just feelings. They are a factor. A starting point. Or NOT.
LOVE is to will the good of the beloved. If your choices don't reflect that in the end, you are missing the important thing.
If you are not making the best possible choice for the person you love, that is not real love!
And for the record, I DO tell this kind of stuff to everyone. What I was trying to say was more, why is that threatening to anybody? I'm just talking. Either I have something to learn or you do (or both). Nothing good will ever come of keeping our ideas to ourselves all the time and never challenging each other. It's a good thing as long as we talk respectfully. :)
However having sex (or as I should really say, "trying" to have sex..."
I think you kind of misunderstood what I was saying about pleasure.
It's NOT wrong. It IS a huge part of sex. My point was that there are TWO important things: pleasure and being open to life.
My point about rape was that it can be an example of the consequences of taking out the element of pleasure/wanting to be close to each other.
As for being open to life, I mean embracing the possibility that you could potentially be having children with that person. I think a huge part of why nature caused it to be that way is to keep us from becoming too selfish about it. Sex should be the least selfish thing: giving yourself completely.
But yes, some people do abuse it. Just like alcohol is natural and people always have and will abuse that too. Or even food (look at fat people).
For things like incest/bestiality you can still see how they are a problem. Throughout history it has usually been the same for homosexuality. Right now we are going through a time that over-glorifies sex and is only continuing to get worse. When children are told to put their "Sexual orientations" in their website bios, I think we have a problem.
We just make too big a deal of it for no good reason.
The same goes (on a lesser scale) for caring too much about kissing and cuddling. When did that become so important? It's an issue I actually had with this series for a long time. Any romantic actions are still actions. We have free will to choose our actions.
Whether it be kids on an adventure who focus unnecessarily on cuddling and holding hands, or adults in relationships unnecessarily focusing on sex, my question is why?
You might say it doesn't matter. It's their choice. I know that, but I think it's a dumb choice. I want someone to explain to me how it isn't.
Isn't it just like building a house on the sand? If we glorify only the "fun" part, then isn't it just like "a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere?"
Like C.S Lewis said, "It's on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.” But the feelings of pleasure are not an end in themselves.
That would be a very shallow view of love.
I think people need to be told they deserve better ways of seeking out pleasure then. Maybe they SHOULD go to the amusement park instead. XP
"Crushes" are something that are SO abstract and hard to talk about. One person might think something is a crush, and someone else might call something completely different a crush. It's an idea that causes a lot of problems...
Many times, I've noticed that when someone has a "crush," the person they have the crush on is not exactly the way they are imagining in their head in the first place. Rather they have a crush on their own image of them.
The bottom line is, it's messy, it's indefinite, it doesn't have to be important. The same is true about all feelings. They are just feelings. They are a factor. A starting point. Or NOT.
LOVE is to will the good of the beloved. If your choices don't reflect that in the end, you are missing the important thing.
If you are not making the best possible choice for the person you love, that is not real love!
And for the record, I DO tell this kind of stuff to everyone. What I was trying to say was more, why is that threatening to anybody? I'm just talking. Either I have something to learn or you do (or both). Nothing good will ever come of keeping our ideas to ourselves all the time and never challenging each other. It's a good thing as long as we talk respectfully. :)
Unbroken Silence wrote: "WHOA. I haven't been on this thread since may 7 - that's still only the top of the page - and the debate has taken such a different path.
Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay becau..."
Dang. Sounds painful xP
Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay becau..."
Dang. Sounds painful xP
Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.However having sex (or as I should really say, "tr..."
Nononono I think you misunderstood me. I think talking about it is fine, I just don't think that telling people what to do all the time is okay (like shoving opinions down other peoples' throats and being like "my opinion is automatically right and yours is wrong") and that you should respect / acknowledge other peoples' opposing opinions (unless they are harmful to people, in which I say fuck that).
(don't worry, I'm not accusing you of anything. I don't think you are at the moment.).
And I do agree that taking pleasure out of sex can lead to rape. Rape is not about pleasure. It is about dominance and it is frankly, wrong.
However, I believe that the way sex is trivialized in society / made more common (which can have good and bad side effects) is more about pleasure than anything. I don't really believe people are going into the direction in which they are taking away the pleasure, in fact, most teenagers do it more for the pleasure than the responsibility. Which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. Personally, I'm all about the whole "you should be in charge of your own sexuality" thing, so while I do see your side, I honestly don't care about how other people have sex as long as it's consensual and isn't hurting any party.
I do agree that there is a responsibility that comes with having sex (like using protection, etc). That is why more people need to be educated in SexEd rather than people preaching abstinence, which breeds ignorance on these matters.
I think that you are overgeneralizing those who put their sexual orientation / gender identity in their bios. On the contrary, I actually think that people who advertise their sexual orientation or gender identity do it because they don't want to be addressed as something they are not or bugged about it (i.e. people on Tumblr repeatedly asking someone "are you gay or straight, etc"). Not because they want to brag. (Though it's better being proud of who you are than ashamed). Furthermore, I'm also pretty sure that there are people who specifically DON'T do that because although society is generally becoming more welcoming to LGBT+ people, there are still loads of people who do the opposite, and many people are still afraid to come out. And like you said, there are plenty of people who don't want to be put in a box. I do agree with you that labels shouldn't have so much emphasis, but I think that some people need labels for a sense of comfort, control or familiarity, which I think shouldn't be denied. Overall, I just think it's a lot more nuanced than you give it credit for.
I think a major fallacy you are making is constantly basing homosexuality / bisexuality / etc. on sex. I have noticed that whenever you reference homosexuality, you nearly always base it on society's mindless need for sex (and if you don't, please elaborate, because that is the impression I am getting). I find this ironic because you are constantly saying that we SHOULDN'T base things on sex but you are doing that to any thing that isn't straight. I mean, again there is love, which is probably the biggest factor. Which brings me to my next point.
As for kissing and cuddling, on a purely biological level, they cause your brain to release dopamine, which is very pleasant. I don't think this has ever been a recent development. Also, have you ever cuddled with someone? (and yes, you CAN cuddle platonically with your friends) It's very nice. And no, I don't want to have sex with my friends. It actually helps me form emotional connections with them and strengthen my friendships because I know them so well. (And when I say cuddling, I do not mean groping because for some reason, there are people who seem to confuse the two???) I think that people do these things more in modern day society because people are getting out of that conservative mindset that also told people to dress like nuns (no offense towards nuns).
While I do think that everyone has their own definitions of a "crush" based on their own experiences, I wouldn't go as far as to dismiss someone's feelings on the basis that they don't really understand it themselves, as I strongly believe that a person's feelings are valid simply because they feel them. (Note: I am not saying that feelings = good. Obviously, there are plenty of negative feelings out there with bad consequences.)
Yes, crushes can be harmful, and yes, it involves usually a lot of romanticizing and glorifying of the person being crushed on, but in the end, from personal experience, all of my crushes have taught me how to or how to not view love, and have all taught me valuable lessons. I wouldn't say they aren't important. Maybe finite, but not unimportant. I don't think that whenever you have a crush on someone, your end goal should be to love them (as again, you can't control who you love). Rather, I think that having a crush is actually help builds character, as cheesy as that sounds. It helps you understand the way you and others react in these kind of situations and helps you understand interactions (or even the paradoxical interactions of some, if that makes sense). Personally, I find human interactions and relationships fascinating (whether it be platonic, romantic, etc), which is why I love character development in books.
As for love, I do agree with you that it is ultimately unselfish, I still take fault with some of your logic.
Would you say I do not love my mom because I have made some selfish decisions in my life regarding her? (which I fully admit to. In fact, I'd accuse anyone of lying if they said that they have never made a selfish decision regarding someone they love.) Or would you say I love her in a problematic way? Cuz I would object to that.
I honestly think that everyone needs to be selfish at times. Though being unselfish is obviously desired, I really disagree with the notion that doing anything for yourself is bad. If I want to go on a donut binge or do a prank on a douche bag ex boyfriend, then I will, and I will do it purely for myself. I think everyone needs to satisfy themselves sometimes.
Tangentially, I don't understand why there is such a stigma against being confident in society or loving yourself. People are told that they can't love themselves or to make themselves smaller, etc, and I find it disgusting that people are shamed for liking themselves (which often leads to them not liking themselves because of what society tells them and causes them to believe they are not good enough, etc, which is just generally bad).
Also, I have a question. Lets say two boys love each other following your exact definition of unselfish love. And now lets say a girl and a boy love each other in the exact same way. Is there a difference? Other than their genitalia?
Brown wrote: "Are you all determined only to respond to the easiest comments? This is why we never get anywhere..."I don't really care about the love thing etc etc, all I care about is the "forcing it down my throat". As I said before they can get married(state/Government) if they want, just don't don't force crap down my throat saying I have to accept "this" or "that", and if I don't I'm a homophobe.
They world is over populated as it is, if they don't want to add to the populace good for them.
Unbroken Silence wrote: "Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay because they were rejected by the opposite sex..."Where is your research? A lot of people may get reject or "betrayed" and go the "same" sex.
Example, a guy might get cheated on by his gf or something or she takes everything he says the wrong way.... he might end up having a relationship with a "trap"(transsexual), they might share his interest and because it's a guy they wouldn't purposely misunderstand him like women do >_>
For some reason there was always a part of me that really loved Nico but whenever there were little clues that he was gay I knew that something was off... I am completely torn between Pernico and Percabeth!!
I read this topic with great pleasure. some opinions I was less happy to read, but I'm not going to call names and point fingers, I probably can't change them anyway.I was delighted by Nico's confession, but honestly I never really thought about it anymore, because to me, it wasn't that big of a deal. Great the kid found love!
Lieske wrote: "I read this topic with great pleasure..."So you read 80 pages worth of posts.... you must have a lot of free time.
Kevin wrote: "Lieske wrote: "I read this topic with great pleasure..."So you read 80 pages worth of posts.... you must have a lot of free time."
i didn't read everything, but I did have 5 days off from school sooo XD
I liked Rick making Nico gay because its shows teens that read this series that are struggling with their sexuality that its perfectly normal and acceptable to be gay.
Lev wrote: "because its shows teens that read this series that are struggling with their sexuality..."How you structure that sentence shows that teens that are reading this series, is in this book and that they were made gay.
Brooke wrote: "We're up to 4000 posts."Not anymore someone deleted 2 posts.
^Kevin being gay is perfectly fine, and yeah gay people are born that way which in no way makes them any different from other people.
Lev wrote: "^Kevin being gay is perfectly fine, and yeah gay people are born that way which in no way makes them any different from other people."...... Reread your original comment carefully. I don't think you got my point... unless you're not a native English speaker?
Kevin wrote: "Lev wrote: "because its shows teens that read this series that are struggling with their sexuality..."How you structure that sentence shows that teens that are reading this series, is in this boo..."
Wat
Dria wrote: "wat"nvm
What? Can u point out my mistake please. What it seems like I said is that Rick writing a gay character helps teens that are struggling with their sexuality.
Kevin wrote: "Unbroken Silence wrote: "Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay because they were rejected by the opposite sex..."Where is your research? A lot of people may get reject or "betrayed..."
Scientists have yet to discover how pondscum can use the internet.
Okay, so maybe that was a little harsh but SERIOUSLY? of course, women exist only to misunderstand everything men say. Also, someone who is transsexual has chosen to be a different gender to their biological or birth gender and calling them a "guy" isn't actually correct and another man who is in a relationship with them isn't technically gay.
I shall explain my first point a little further. Nobody chooses to be gay because they were rejected by the opposite gender. They may have been bisexual who then preferred to be in a relationship with their own gender because they felt safer that way. I know a few bisexual rape victims who only date women because of the trauma. They may be any other sexuality where gender doesn't especially matter. They may just be stupid. But nobody, repeat, nobody "turns gay" because they're upset about their gf/bf dumping them.
@Brown: I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the contrived nature of relationships in PJO. I love the books a lot but the writing isn't exactly exceptional. However, your view on love is quite confusing. I don't want to define love. Defining such an abstract concept is virtually impossible. However, I can tell you it's not just about having a family. I don't know if it is supposed to be - after all the purpose of life is to create more life - but it isn't. Have you ever had a crush? You didn't want to immediately marry that person did you (maybe you did, I don't know, "crushes" are weird things)? Nor did you immediately want to have sex with said person (again, you may have done).
I personally hate the term "crush". It's so abstract and so many people have different views of it. However, I'm sure you understand my point. It is often associated with love. I don't really think that's right. Sure, sometimes you are in love with that person, but mostly you're just attracted to them. Either way, that's not just about having a family either.
@Lev: I'm not entirely sure what Kevin means, your original comment is possible to understand, but yeah, the sentence structure was quite confusing. Try:
I liked Rick making Nico gay because it shows teens who are struggling with their sexuality and reading this series that it's perfectly normal and acceptable to be gay.
Rereading that I think I kinda swerved around my point but I hope everyone will get the general gist of what I was saying.
Lieske wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Lieske wrote: "I read this topic with great pleasure..."
So you read 80 pages worth of posts.... you must have a lot of free time."
i didn't read everything, but I did have 5 days o..."
This may or always be a heated topic. We live in a society that always argues for or against every single thing there is to argue about.
So you read 80 pages worth of posts.... you must have a lot of free time."
i didn't read everything, but I did have 5 days o..."
This may or always be a heated topic. We live in a society that always argues for or against every single thing there is to argue about.
Reena wrote: "Lieske wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Lieske wrote: "I read this topic with great pleasure..."So you read 80 pages worth of posts.... you must have a lot of free time."
i didn't read everything but, I di..."
I can't say anything else but that I agree
is that correct english?...
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.
However having sex (or as I should r..."
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.
However having sex (or as I should r..."
If talking isn't wrong, then what does it mean not to "shove my opinion down people's throats?" I don't stone people or anything :P I just try to tell them I think they deserve better if I can. Especially if it's someone I care about. Because I want what's best for them. Not because I think they're not equal or something??? (someone said that to me before, not that you did).
The reason I'm talking about sex is because that's really what it boils down to. Otherwise it's an under estimation of friendship. In friendship you can be committed to each other too, you can even live together. Granted, you don't get the same legal benefits as in marriage, (but that is a separate issue).
Look at say... Frodo and Sam, and what is done to them in fan fictions these days. Was their relationship not good enough? What do people think they're adding by making it "romantic" if not just unnecessary phsyical displays of affection? Are they not still devoted to each other? What is the magical, mysterious thing that makes their relationship different then? A feeling..?
My point was never, ever that feelings are insignificant per say... but they are NOT the things that necessarily make a relationship romantic. Loving someone isn't a choice, but being committed to someone romantically IS a choice... and indeed, not one that MUST be made.
Feelings are necessarily fickle, passing... we are made to move on from them if need be. Despite what soap operas tell us, people can and do every day. Encourging ourselves to get wrapped up in feelings for their own sake is a recipe for disaster and depression. There is no need to put an OVER emphasis on them to the point that they are the sole dictator of our choices, I mean.
We have free will. We have responsibility. We have a life with factors to think about.
As for love being selfless... well, I'm not saying everyone is going to love perfectly. Like anything else, it is something we ideally strive for even though we will inevitably fail sometimes. When we ask someone to be considerate we're not expecting them to be 100% considerate all the time, are we? It's just the goal, like with any virtue: "a goal is something you are reaching for, even if you never reach it." :P I mean, when you do those things, you're not really doing it to hurt your mom, you just disgaree that they're bad things, right? If you were doing it for the purpose of hurting her, then in that instance you wouldn't be loving her (though overall, you love her because your goodwill for her outweighs the bad).
To your question about two boys being selfless to each other, here is the whole point: being selfless to each other is doing what's best for each other (even if it's not what we want).
Well, if you are telling someone your relationship is not good enough unless you turn it "romantic" even though there is no reason for it because you are not complementary, that is not doing what's best for them. (not that they might not believe that).
I already said what I think about romantic relationships. If they're not ultimately ordered toward being sexual sooner or later, it's just a game and a waste of time like with the teenagers in these books. (not to say there is always a need to be sexual...or by the same token, in a relationship at all).
I started a discussion on this book that I keep getting confused with this one. It was called "Does anyone else think there is a serious overuse of romance in this series?" That was where I was explaining how I had a problem with these books (long before Nico) because of the pointlessness to all the romance. How it's treated like a cute little game, not a serious commitment.
The bottom line is, if you're just in a relationship for the "fun" parts, it's just as much a waste of time when you are gay OR "straight." If you are just holding hands or going on dates to the pizza parlor because you're a twerpy 12 year old who can't do anything else, there's absolutely no need to be dwelling on "being in love" in the first place.
And if you ARE going to get in a committment and have self-indulgent sex, all the worse. That is taking the unnecessary self-indulgence even farther. Yes, that is perverted. Yes, that is crossing the line and making you a slave to passions.
"Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population."
Is this really all just because of bullying, or are the people trying to "help" them just trapping them by telling them there is a need to get in romantic relationships (and/or put genitals together???) or else they're "hiding part of themself away" and can't be happy.
Just to speak from my own experience, that has never made anyone happy anymore than the teenage girls in high school who get in pointless relationships and end up writing the inevitable internet posts about their big, devestating break ups. You are building your house on the sand when you get in these kind of relationships. They are fruitless.
They build character? Okay. And how do they build character? Because we learn from them. We learn from them as mistakes. They are mistakes: that is my point. Mistakes can be avoided...
Lust: An inordinate desire for or enjoyment of sexual pleasure.
Is it not inordinate when we force ourselves to do something like that... when we are not even physically made to?
Idk if you guys are Christians, but don't get turned off when I try to explain this because I'm gonna use the word sin.
A sin is not something that "makes you go to hell," because someone decided that on a whim. They are things that necessarily lead us further from what I'm going to call holiness for lack of a more politically correct word (bear with me). That is to say: they lead you to your own destruction.
Lust is something that will ultimately cause you to deteriorate inside, despite what modern society is saying.
Is that just an opinion, or can you see that reflected in real life?
The average teenage girl on the internet who claims they're bi? Depressed. (Go on Tumblr and DeviantArt). Narcissism is almost always close by in these cases. Self-obsession is a drug. This much focus on self and unnecessary self pleasure WILL hurt you. Even if you can't always see how.
If you care about someone you will tell them to avoid it at all costs. (No. NOT *PLEASURE.* Inordinate pleasure. Sex is frankly, something that because of its nature should only be done in very rare circumstances in the first place: it's the physical giving of WHOLE SELF to potentially create new LIFE. Of course abusing and belittling that is going to hurt you. It makes you lose sight of the real good thing sex is: it skews it and mocks it. Nobody deserves to be told that's normal "for them").
Someone once told me "so you think you can just tell them not to do something, and make them so miserable they want to kill themselves?"
Well.... if you are basing your life (so much that you would want to kill yourself) on the fact that you can't have sex (not even technically *can't* but that some people might not technically approve of it) THAT is a HUGE problem.
However having sex (or as I should r..."
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Yes, some women are sterile, but here is the whole point: That is a tragedy! Not something you seek out on purpose.
However having sex (or as I should r..."
If talking isn't wrong, then what does it mean not to "shove my opinion down people's throats?" I don't stone people or anything :P I just try to tell them I think they deserve better if I can. Especially if it's someone I care about. Because I want what's best for them. Not because I think they're not equal or something??? (someone said that to me before, not that you did).
The reason I'm talking about sex is because that's really what it boils down to. Otherwise it's an under estimation of friendship. In friendship you can be committed to each other too, you can even live together. Granted, you don't get the same legal benefits as in marriage, (but that is a separate issue).
Look at say... Frodo and Sam, and what is done to them in fan fictions these days. Was their relationship not good enough? What do people think they're adding by making it "romantic" if not just unnecessary phsyical displays of affection? Are they not still devoted to each other? What is the magical, mysterious thing that makes their relationship different then? A feeling..?
My point was never, ever that feelings are insignificant per say... but they are NOT the things that necessarily make a relationship romantic. Loving someone isn't a choice, but being committed to someone romantically IS a choice... and indeed, not one that MUST be made.
Feelings are necessarily fickle, passing... we are made to move on from them if need be. Despite what soap operas tell us, people can and do every day. Encourging ourselves to get wrapped up in feelings for their own sake is a recipe for disaster and depression. There is no need to put an OVER emphasis on them to the point that they are the sole dictator of our choices, I mean.
We have free will. We have responsibility. We have a life with factors to think about.
As for love being selfless... well, I'm not saying everyone is going to love perfectly. Like anything else, it is something we ideally strive for even though we will inevitably fail sometimes. When we ask someone to be considerate we're not expecting them to be 100% considerate all the time, are we? It's just the goal, like with any virtue: "a goal is something you are reaching for, even if you never reach it." :P I mean, when you do those things, you're not really doing it to hurt your mom, you just disgaree that they're bad things, right? If you were doing it for the purpose of hurting her, then in that instance you wouldn't be loving her (though overall, you love her because your goodwill for her outweighs the bad).
To your question about two boys being selfless to each other, here is the whole point: being selfless to each other is doing what's best for each other (even if it's not what we want).
Well, if you are telling someone your relationship is not good enough unless you turn it "romantic" even though there is no reason for it because you are not complementary, that is not doing what's best for them. (not that they might not believe that).
I already said what I think about romantic relationships. If they're not ultimately ordered toward being sexual sooner or later, it's just a game and a waste of time like with the teenagers in these books. (not to say there is always a need to be sexual...or by the same token, in a relationship at all).
I started a discussion on this book that I keep getting confused with this one. It was called "Does anyone else think there is a serious overuse of romance in this series?" That was where I was explaining how I had a problem with these books (long before Nico) because of the pointlessness to all the romance. How it's treated like a cute little game, not a serious commitment.
The bottom line is, if you're just in a relationship for the "fun" parts, it's just as much a waste of time when you are gay OR "straight." If you are just holding hands or going on dates to the pizza parlor because you're a twerpy 12 year old who can't do anything else, there's absolutely no need to be dwelling on "being in love" in the first place.
And if you ARE going to get in a committment and have self-indulgent sex, all the worse. That is taking the unnecessary self-indulgence even farther. Yes, that is perverted. Yes, that is crossing the line and making you a slave to passions.
"Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population."
Is this really all just because of bullying, or are the people trying to "help" them just trapping them by telling them there is a need to get in romantic relationships (and/or put genitals together???) or else they're "hiding part of themself away" and can't be happy.
Just to speak from my own experience, that has never made anyone happy anymore than the teenage girls in high school who get in pointless relationships and end up writing the inevitable internet posts about their big, devestating break ups. You are building your house on the sand when you get in these kind of relationships. They are fruitless.
They build character? Okay. And how do they build character? Because we learn from them. We learn from them as mistakes. They are mistakes: that is my point. Mistakes can be avoided...
Lust: An inordinate desire for or enjoyment of sexual pleasure.
Is it not inordinate when we force ourselves to do something like that... when we are not even physically made to?
Idk if you guys are Christians, but don't get turned off when I try to explain this because I'm gonna use the word sin.
A sin is not something that "makes you go to hell," because someone decided that on a whim. They are things that necessarily lead us further from what I'm going to call holiness for lack of a more politically correct word (bear with me). That is to say: they lead you to your own destruction.
Lust is something that will ultimately cause you to deteriorate inside, despite what modern society is saying.
Is that just an opinion, or can you see that reflected in real life?
The average teenage girl on the internet who claims they're bi? Depressed. (Go on Tumblr and DeviantArt). Narcissism is almost always close by in these cases. Self-obsession is a drug. This much focus on self and unnecessary self pleasure WILL hurt you. Even if you can't always see how.
If you care about someone you will tell them to avoid it at all costs. (No. NOT *PLEASURE.* Inordinate pleasure. Sex is frankly, something that because of its nature should only be done in very rare circumstances in the first place: it's the physical giving of WHOLE SELF to potentially create new LIFE. Of course abusing and belittling that is going to hurt you. It makes you lose sight of the real good thing sex is: it skews it and mocks it. Nobody deserves to be told that's normal "for them").
Someone once told me "so you think you can just tell them not to do something, and make them so miserable they want to kill themselves?"
Well.... if you are basing your life (so much that you would want to kill yourself) on the fact that you can't have sex (not even technically *can't* but that some people might not technically approve of it) THAT is a HUGE problem.
Unbroken Silence wrote: "Kevin wrote: "Unbroken Silence wrote: "Guys please. Do your research. No one's becoming gay because they were rejected by the opposite sex..."
Where is your research? A lot of people may get rejec..."
My main point about crushes, is that since they are so "weird" and abstract (which we agree on), they are much less significant than people give them credit for.
Basically, I don't think there is always reason to act on them (or even acknowledge them necessarily)...
The main point of a romantic relationship is that it's a natural thing that eases us into the commitment of (ideally, not necessarily) having a family with that person (but always ordered toward such).
I don't know about the world being "over-populated" but I'm pretty sure the point isn't just about kissing and cuddling. Think about it: that's the part everyone makes fun of. It's part of romantic love, but not the whole point, and over-dwelling on it is foolish.
Think the world is over-populated? Don't get married. Though I'd argue the validity of that statement...
If love is a magical, corny word without a definition, I don't want any part of that garbage, to be honest. You can "follow your heart" and "believe in your dreams" but it will always be that meaningless.
Where is your research? A lot of people may get rejec..."
My main point about crushes, is that since they are so "weird" and abstract (which we agree on), they are much less significant than people give them credit for.
Basically, I don't think there is always reason to act on them (or even acknowledge them necessarily)...
The main point of a romantic relationship is that it's a natural thing that eases us into the commitment of (ideally, not necessarily) having a family with that person (but always ordered toward such).
I don't know about the world being "over-populated" but I'm pretty sure the point isn't just about kissing and cuddling. Think about it: that's the part everyone makes fun of. It's part of romantic love, but not the whole point, and over-dwelling on it is foolish.
Think the world is over-populated? Don't get married. Though I'd argue the validity of that statement...
If love is a magical, corny word without a definition, I don't want any part of that garbage, to be honest. You can "follow your heart" and "believe in your dreams" but it will always be that meaningless.
Rick Riordan wouldn't have Nico be gay for no reason. Something big i probably going to happen in the Blood of Olympus including Nico. Maybe he falls for Reyna and he has to choose between her and Percy? Maybe he has to choose to save someone and it's between Percy and Annabeth or something? I don't know.
Shahdia wrote: "Cecily wrote: "Rick Riordan wouldn't have Nico be gay for no reason. Something big i probably going to happen in the Blood of Olympus including Nico. Maybe he falls for Reyna and he has to choose b..."No I don't think he'll fall for Reyna. I'm actually kind of afraid he'll risk his life for Percy. Like DIE so Percy wouldn't or something crazy and suicidal like that. I really really hope that isn't the outcome, but with Rick, you never know.
^ Ebony! PLEASE DON'T JINX ITIF NICO WERE TO DIE I WOULD CRY FOR DAYSSSSSSSSSS X~O
I don't care if Nico's gay, it in no way lessens my affection for his character... (Poor misunderstood soul... D:)
Plus, he had one little crush, does this really qualify as being gay??? It might not even be a crush, Nico is 14, ( I also being 14) feelings are messed up is what I am trying to say. He may THINK it as a crush, but (oh I was not born with the gift of words... :/) but it might not be a you know, CRUSH. Maybe Rick will just let it brush over? I dunno. Just stating possibilities...
Brown wrote: "If talking isn't wrong, then what does it mean not to "shove my opinion down people's throats?" I don't stone people or anything :P I just try to tell them I think they deserve better if I can. Especially if it's someone I care about. Because I want what's best for them. Not because I think they're not equal or something??? (someone said that to me before, not that you did)." If you read my post carefully, I specifically stated that I didn't think you were shoving your opinion down other peoples' throats (yet). If you want specifics on what it means to "shove your opinion down someone's throat" I go by when you (I'm not saying you as in Brown but people in general) adamantly refuse to consider someone else's point into consideration and go by the mindset "everything I say is automatically right and anything that opposes is wrong". I'm pretty sure I clarified on this in my previous post but whatever.
But also keep in mind that there is a subtle distinction between "I'm trying to tell you this for your own good" and also attempting to invalidate their feelings because you have a different opinion than them. Because no matter how strongly you believe in this, in the end, it is still just your opinion, not fact. You don't like how sex or love is being portrayed and emphasized by society? Me either, but from my point of view, you take it to extremes and from what I can see, you believe in the dichotomy of either a romantic relationship in which love and having children is necessary or one of the only goals OR a platonic friendship, which I disagree with. I think that there are many more shades of grey and I find your distinction between a platonic and romantic relationship to be...well, not completely accurate.
Brown wrote: "The reason I'm talking about sex is because that's really what it boils down to. Otherwise it's an under estimation of friendship. In friendship you can be committed to each other too, you can even live together. Granted, you don't get the same legal benefits as in marriage, (but that is a separate issue)."
1) You can be in a romantic relationship without having sex. You can be in a romantic relationship without even being in love (though it obviously isn't ideal), but look at high school relationships. But just because they aren't popping out babies doesn't make it a friendship.
2) Either way, it isn't automatically equivalent to friendship. It isn't either you're in love or it should just be a friendship.
3) There is a reason why people fall in love with their friends, but not EVERY SINGLE ONE of their friends. While these type of feelings are abstract (but really, what feelings aren't?) and do depend on the individual, it isn't necessarily because people can't tell the urges between romantic / sexual attraction and platonic friendship. If someone is struggling with what they feel for someone, there are probably hints of romantic attraction already, not because society is telling everyone to love the most convenient person.
By your logic (sex being what it boils down to), then what? What do you think of relationships where they don't have sex but kiss a lot? I don't really view that as simply friendship, and in fact I view it as more of a romantic one. There are still many teenagers and even adults that don't have sex with their significant other. (For example, one of my best friends has been in a relationship with her boyfriend for over a year, hasn't had sex with him yet, and they both don't consider themselves just friends, and they like eachother in a romantic way).
4) Asexual people. Let's not forget about that group, ok? Asexual people can be in romantic relationships, but they don't have sexual attractions, but romantic ones. They don't have sex (for the most part) but they can make the distinction between friendship and a romantic relationship. (Aromantic people are an entirely different issue).
Note: I am NOT trying to minimalize the significance of friendship. Obviously, friendship is important, but I feel that a friendship and a romantic relationship exist on different ends of the spectrum, and that there are levels that flirt between the two. It isn't one or the other.
Brown wrote: "Look at say... Frodo and Sam, and what is done to them in fan fictions these days. Was their relationship not good enough? What do people think they're adding by making it "romantic" if not just unnecessary phsyical displays of affection? Are they not still devoted to each other? What is the magical, mysterious thing that makes their relationship different then? A feeling..?"
I have no clue who Frodo and Sam are. But as for fanfiction in general, I think that shipping is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. Some people ship those two, some people don't (like you). If you wonder why someone would make this kind of interpretation of a relationship between two fictional characters, then I suggest you take it up with the writer. I'm pretty sure they have their own line of reasoning.
Brown wrote: "My point was never, ever that feelings are insignificant per say... but they are NOT the things that necessarily make a relationship romantic. Loving someone isn't a choice, but being committed to someone romantically IS a choice... and indeed, not one that MUST be made."
I agree with you here. Not being committed to someone in a relationship is problematic. However, though it isn't ideal, there are romantic relationships in which one party may not be as committed than the other. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a romantic relationship though (though I suggest that if anyone finds themselves in this kind of relationship, it isn't worth it and should be avoided).
Brown wrote: "Feelings are necessarily fickle, passing... we are made to move on from them if need be. Despite what soap operas tell us, people can and do every day. Encourging ourselves to get wrapped up in feelings for their own sake is a recipe for disaster and depression. There is no need to put an OVER emphasis on them to the point that they are the sole dictator of our choices, I mean.
We have free will. We have responsibility. We have a life with factors to think about."
And I agree with you here. There is an overemphasis on love these days. However, I think that if not following through on your own feelings for the sake of not giving in makes someone unhappy, then they should at least be allowed to express themselves (in regards to LGBTQ+ people being told not to feel what they feel.)
Brown wrote: "As for love being selfless... well, I'm not saying everyone is going to love perfectly. Like anything else, it is something we ideally strive for even though we will inevitably fail sometimes. When we ask someone to be considerate we're not expecting them to be 100% considerate all the time, are we? It's just the goal, like with any virtue: "a goal is something you are reaching for, even if you never reach it." :P I mean, when you do those things, you're not really doing it to hurt your mom, you just disgaree that they're bad things, right? If you were doing it for the purpose of hurting her, then in that instance you wouldn't be loving her (though overall, you love her because your goodwill for her outweighs the bad)."
And again, I agree with you here.
Brown wrote: "To your question about two boys being selfless to each other, here is the whole point: being selfless to each other is doing what's best for each other (even if it's not what we want).
Well, if you are telling someone your relationship is not good enough unless you turn it "romantic" even though there is no reason for it because you are not complementary, that is not doing what's best for them. (not that they might not believe that)."
And I disagree with you here. Just because society still has a heteronormative view towards love doesn't automatically make anything not heterosexual bad for you. It's not that their relationship isn't good enough. That's like saying that friendship isn't as good as a romantic relationship, which isn't true. It's just that their feelings for each other probably existed on the other end of the spectrum, and again, you can't control your feelings. Yes, it is true that you don't always have to act on your feelings, but for them, I'm pretty sure that in this regard it would only breed unhappiness from both parties. Again, it's not the dichotomy of either friendship or lovers destined to be with each other. And just because society is more accepting of heterosexual relationships than anything else doesn't mean that only viewing heterosexual relationships as good makes it "best for them". From what I can see, telling two gay boys not to act on their feelings towards each other because of how it may hurt them (from societal backlash and the like, basically) is society's fault, not the two boys, and is ultimately more harmful than beneficial. You're literally telling someone not to express a major part of themselves, which is inherently harmful.
Brown wrote: "I already said what I think about romantic relationships. If they're not ultimately ordered toward being sexual sooner or later, it's just a game and a waste of time like with the teenagers in these books. (not to say there is always a need to be sexual...or by the same token, in a relationship at all).
I started a discussion on this book that I keep getting confused with this one. It was called "Does anyone else think there is a serious overuse of romance in this series?" That was where I was explaining how I had a problem with these books (long before Nico) because of the pointlessness to all the romance. How it's treated like a cute little game, not a serious commitment.
The bottom line is, if you're just in a relationship for the "fun" parts, it's just as much a waste of time when you are gay OR "straight." If you are just holding hands or going on dates to the pizza parlor because you're a twerpy 12 year old who can't do anything else, there's absolutely no need to be dwelling on "being in love" in the first place."
And again, I disagree. Though I do agree that the romantic relationships in HoH aren't exactly ideal or even realistic at all and are pretty contrived, I don't think that any romantic relationship that isn't for the purpose of procreating is a "waste of time". I enter romantic relationships if I like someone in a romantic way, pure and simple. I'm not thinking as far ahead like "will I make babies with this guy?" And isn't that kind of the point of dating? To test the field of who you may or may not spend the rest of your life with? (As when you date someone, you either eventually break up or you marry.) How do you know who you will spend the rest of your life with if you have never tested the waters with your apparent "waste of time relationships"? How else will you know who to NOT marry? How else will you determine if someone is the right person for you? You can't expect to marry the first guy you date (which, while possible, is extremely rare). Let the twerpy 12 year olds explore the intricacies of dating and "love". You can't expect them to know everything right off the bat, and obviously, as they grow up, they will learn and become more mature about these issues. It's a learning process.
Brown wrote: "And if you ARE going to get in a committment and have self-indulgent sex, all the worse. That is taking the unnecessary self-indulgence even farther. Yes, that is perverted. Yes, that is crossing the line and making you a slave to passions."
And that's your opinion. I don't think it's perverted unless you're unnecessarily groping the other person constantly and in public etc. Otherwise, I don't care, just don't let it take over your life. Putting sex as your first priority is bad, but having sex in itself, imo, is not.
Brown wrote: ""Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population."Is this really all just because of bullying, or are the people trying to "help" them just trapping them by telling them there is a need to get in romantic relationships (and/or put genitals together???) or else they're "hiding part of themself away" and can't be happy."
Ummmmmmm. First of all, although people are steadily becoming more accepting, most people would rather people be straight rather than anything else. Most parents who say that they would accept their kid if they turned out to be something other straight and cisgender would rather their kid be straight and cisgender. There is a significant higher percentage of people NOT telling them to be in romantic relationships than people that support it. There is a reason why there are much more states in the US that outlaw gay marriage than those that have legalized it. No one is trapping them together. People are generally more accepting of straight people than LGBTQ+ people. That IS a fact, sadly.
And yes, I do believe that is because of the stigma still surrounding homosexual relationships, etc. Bullying and societal backlash is a big part of it, and it does cause the suicide rate to go up. When people are constantly told that they're gross and wrong and unnatural, when half the world (if not more) is against their existence, I'm pretty sure it leads to attempted suicide and suicide ideation at a much higher rate than those who aren't actively discriminated on account of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Education has a lot to do with it too. People aren't properly educated on these matters, which I believe causes a lot of ignorance too. This is important.
Brown wrote: "Just to speak from my own experience, that has never made anyone happy anymore than the teenage girls in high school who get in pointless relationships and end up writing the inevitable internet posts about their big, devestating break ups. You are building your house on the sand when you get in these kind of relationships. They are fruitless."
See above about the paragraph I posted on dating (which includes straight or gay or any other kind of relationship).
Brown wrote: "They build character? Okay. And how do they build character? Because we learn from them. We learn from them as mistakes. They are mistakes: that is my point. Mistakes can be avoided... "
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd rather make a few mistakes than go through life somehow doing everything perfectly. Conversely, I believe that if you never make mistakes, then you are doing something wrong.
And yes, I believe mistakes are necessary in life so you can learn from them. While I'm not saying that mistakes are the only way to learn from something, living life just to avoid mistakes seems rather stupid to me.
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”
― Albert Einstein
Brown wrote: "Lust: An inordinate desire for or enjoyment of sexual pleasure.
Is it not inordinate when we force ourselves to do something like that... when we are not even physically made to?"
Well, the definition for lust I got off the internet was this: very strong sexual desire.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure lust is a perfectly natural feeling. You know, hormones and all that jazz. I don't care about lust unless someone acts on it without the other persons' consent.
Brown wrote: "Idk if you guys are Christians, but don't get turned off when I try to explain this because I'm gonna use the word sin.
A sin is not something that "makes you go to hell," because someone decided that on a whim. They are things that necessarily lead us further from what I'm going to call holiness for lack of a more politically correct word (bear with me). That is to say: they lead you to your own destruction.
Lust is something that will ultimately cause you to deteriorate inside, despite what modern society is saying.
Is that just an opinion, or can you see that reflected in real life?"
Nope. Not Christian. Atheist.
Personally, I see that as an opinion. Because I'm pretty sure everyone has felt lust at least once in their life (unless you died young or something. In fact, if you haven't felt any signs of lust, then you're probably asexual or something.)
And does that mean every person who has ever felt lust will deteriorate inside? Am I deteriorating inside? :(( oh no. Are my teachers? Are my parents? :oooooo
Oh dear.
Brown wrote: "The average teenage girl on the internet who claims they're bi? Depressed. (Go on Tumblr and DeviantArt). Narcissism is almost always close by in these cases. Self-obsession is a drug. This much focus on self and unnecessary self pleasure WILL hurt you. Even if you can't always see how."
Ok, personally as a Tumblr AND a Deviantart user (though not as much for the latter), from what I can see, the two (bisexuality and depression) are not always connected???? And if they are, it's probably because of the stigma behind anything not straight or cisgender.
Also, need I remind you about OTHER factors that could cause depression? For example: the education system. Most of the depressed teenagers I know are depressed because of factors that have to do with stress and homework caused by the fucked up education system. I was personally depressed for a while this year because of the severe amount of stress I was undergoing (I just finished junior year. Worst year ever. I was up till 3 in the morning regularly doing homework.)
I don't see caring about yourself as narcissism or self-obsession. [shouts into a void] Why is there so much stigma around being confident and loving yourself in this society?????????????????? People are already unhappy enough these days without people shaming others for finding any happiness within themselves.
Anyways, your "depressed and bisexual tumblr and deviantart teenage girls", unfortunately, probably experience more self-hatred and insecurity than narcissism and self-obsession.
Brown wrote: "If you care about someone you will tell them to avoid it at all costs. (No. NOT *PLEASURE.* Inordinate pleasure. Sex is frankly, something that because of its nature should only be done in very rare circumstances in the first place: it's the physical giving of WHOLE SELF to potentially create new LIFE. Of course abusing and belittling that is going to hurt you. It makes you lose sight of the real good thing sex is: it skews it and mocks it. Nobody deserves to be told that's normal "for them").
Someone once told me "so you think you can just tell them not to do something, and make them so miserable they want to kill themselves?"
Well.... if you are basing your life (so much that you would want to kill yourself) on the fact that you can't have sex (not even technically *can't* but that some people might not technically approve of it) THAT is a HUGE problem. "
Well, nobody deserves someone else repeatedly telling them that they think that their lifestyle is wrong and perverted and unnatural. That's YOUR opinion on sex. Why do you care about how much other people have sex? How does that affect you? I really disagree with the notion that sex should only be done for procreating. Sorry. I don't think that having / not having sex has any relation to someone's morality.
wowwww. that was so long. i have way too much free time atm. (i just got my wisdom teeth out and im basically stuck at home for the next few days).
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: ""Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher tha..."
I'm not saying relationships have to be sexual right away. But if you know for a fact they're never going to be, what's the point? Sure, go on dates... but some people really don't need to be doing that. Why can't twerpy 12 year olds just play video games to get pleasure? (if that's really what it's all about anyway).
The whole "getting practice" thing is such a dumb argument too. Because we all know how much successful marriages depend on how many failed relationships you had in middle school.
However there are plenty of successful marriages where neither partner got any "practice" :/
Not to say it always works out on the first try. But why settle for an inevitable failure? That's what I don't get.
Also, I'm not saying there is no such thing as feelings that make us want to be romantic. Keyword: WANT to be romantic. Feelings that in themselves make your relationship romantic? Not so much. That's a choice, albeit one we might be emotionally inclined toward making.
BUT that's where we have to act responsibly.
Otherwise we're being hypocrites when we make fun of people like Bella and Edward (the most obviously idiotic couple) :P
We do not have to act on feelings. Whether they be addictions toward alcohol or the urge to punch my brother in the face. We have a choice. We need to not belittle our freedom in that area.
Also, you are defining lust differently and therefore missing my point. Lust is basically the over-obsession with sex/sexual attraction.
When your bodies aren't complementary that is being over obsessed.
I KNOW you're going to say "who cares, it's their choice." I'm NOT talking about whether or not anyone cares, whether or not anyone does or doesn't choose it. I am talking about an ACT independent of circumstances.
I never said sex was ONLY about procreation. However, when you're not open to life (keyword:OPEN) it turns it into a fruitless, self-indulgent game.
And that is where all the problems come from.
And when you are in fruitless, self-indulgent relationships like teenagers in middle school, that is just a waste of time too.
I'm not saying relationships have to be sexual right away. But if you know for a fact they're never going to be, what's the point? Sure, go on dates... but some people really don't need to be doing that. Why can't twerpy 12 year olds just play video games to get pleasure? (if that's really what it's all about anyway).
The whole "getting practice" thing is such a dumb argument too. Because we all know how much successful marriages depend on how many failed relationships you had in middle school.
However there are plenty of successful marriages where neither partner got any "practice" :/
Not to say it always works out on the first try. But why settle for an inevitable failure? That's what I don't get.
Also, I'm not saying there is no such thing as feelings that make us want to be romantic. Keyword: WANT to be romantic. Feelings that in themselves make your relationship romantic? Not so much. That's a choice, albeit one we might be emotionally inclined toward making.
BUT that's where we have to act responsibly.
Otherwise we're being hypocrites when we make fun of people like Bella and Edward (the most obviously idiotic couple) :P
We do not have to act on feelings. Whether they be addictions toward alcohol or the urge to punch my brother in the face. We have a choice. We need to not belittle our freedom in that area.
Also, you are defining lust differently and therefore missing my point. Lust is basically the over-obsession with sex/sexual attraction.
When your bodies aren't complementary that is being over obsessed.
I KNOW you're going to say "who cares, it's their choice." I'm NOT talking about whether or not anyone cares, whether or not anyone does or doesn't choose it. I am talking about an ACT independent of circumstances.
I never said sex was ONLY about procreation. However, when you're not open to life (keyword:OPEN) it turns it into a fruitless, self-indulgent game.
And that is where all the problems come from.
And when you are in fruitless, self-indulgent relationships like teenagers in middle school, that is just a waste of time too.
Cecerose wrote: "wowwww. that was so long. i have way too much free time atm. (i just got my wisdom teeth out and im basically stuck at home for the next few days)."
Sorry D: wisdom teeth suck.
Sorry D: wisdom teeth suck.
Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: ""Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is compara..."Relationships that do not turn out to be sexual are based on...feelings? Emotions? Love? I feel like we are just going in circles. Because you can love someone with your entire being without having sex. The point is two people being happy and content with each other? The twerpy 12 year olds obviously derive different types pleasure b/w the hesitancy and butterflies of their first crush and playing video games. Again, it's not just about pleasure (in fact, most 12 year olds shouldn't be having sex or whatever anyways). And although you obviously believe in not acting on these "fruitless" feelings because they may or may not be significant in the end, I think if you're not willing to explore those parts of yourself just because it may ultimately not mean anything is, instead of practical, kind of stupid. Because say what you want, but either way, denying your feelings just for the sake of denying it is also a potential missed opportunity. Kids get emotions too -- maybe not love or whatever, but yes they CAN learn from it and take something from the experience. It's not automatically useless. Again, I think we both simply disagree about this and are going in circles.
Also, for the dating thing, it's not just about "getting practice". It's literally about having relationships with different people (not just in middle school, but in high school, college, and beyond) and seeing if this person is right for you. And if not, you can reflect on the relationship and see what went wrong and know what to avoid and know what to look for in a way that perfectly complements yourself. (I say this not in a sexual way, but in more of a romantic way or in regards to personality, etc.) And that's the point. You're not "settling for an inevitable failure". First of all, how do you know if it's going to be a failure if you don't even try? Second of all, the point is you're NOT settling??? Settling for something is when you accept something just because it's the best you've got, when contrarily, dating causes you to know who to NOT settle for. How do you know who to settle for if you never dated someone?
No one said you HAD to act on your feelings. You're right, feelings don't control you. What I just don't like is how you keep dismissing the majority of any romantic relationships unless it goes by your exact definition or whatever. But maybe that's just me. But that's the impression I'm getting from you.
"When your bodies aren't complementary that is being over obsessed"
^ I'm not even 100% sure what this means??? Is a subtle indication of your disapproval of homosexual relationships or whatever? Because if it is (and again, you are basing this off lust or sex or whatever when I already reminded you that there are feelings involved (and yes you may say that these feelings are stupid and fruitless or whatever but that does not take away the validity of the feelings in themselves.), which I'm guessing due to the fact that there may not be one penis and one vagina that fit into one another (which you probably consider complementary), you, again, jump to the conclusion that these relationships are built on the individual's need to have sexual intercourse with closest / most convenient human being, which it really is not???? It's not about being obsessed with sex................ Right now, I just see this as an excuse to not accept any relationship that isn't purely heterosexual??
Okay. So basically, what I'm guessing you're trying to say, if you have sex, you should be open to the possibility of someone possibly getting pregnant. While I definitely agree with you that there IS a responsibility that comes with having sex (that's why we need better SexEd people. So people KNOW what they're getting into), I simply disagree that having sex for the sake of sex is inherently selfish. That's literally it: I disagree. I already stated many of my reasons in my above posts, but I think you get my point by now.
Honestly, I think we just simply disagree on a lot of matters. Agree to disagree? Otherwise we're just going in circles.
Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "wowwww. that was so long. i have way too much free time atm. (i just got my wisdom teeth out and im basically stuck at home for the next few days)."Sorry D: wisdom teeth suck."
Yeah... my cheeks are literally swollen like a chipmunk's rn. I can't tell if my face is a balloon or a face. Ugh.
....Wow... wall of text.
Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: ""Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) yo..."
Yeah, I think we both made our points and will just be repeating ourselves if we keep it up too much longer.
But just to the part about kids getting in relationships to learn from them... I still don't see why they have to be romantic relationships? By that I mean kissing and cuddling and holding hands like in these books.
If you see someone is good for you then by all means, do that when you're ready. It just seemed kind of stupid for teenagers.Like Percy and Annabeth falling asleep together. Ooookaaaay? Really nice thing to encourage kids to do for no good reason.
They seemed to be getting to know each other just fine without that stuff. Even if they had romantic *feelings* there was just no reason for their mushy actions since they were just kids on an adventure? (not that what they do is the worst, but for an example of how I got the impression Rick Riordan was over-prioritizing romance a lot here).
Remember Percy admitted he still felt like he "didn't really understand Annabeth" yet. Kissing helps you get to know people...?
Also to clarify, when I said complimentary I was just saying their bodies aren't even made to work together sexually. Not that being sexual was the whole point of a romantic relationship. Though if neither party has hope for sex potentially being a part of it eventually, that kind of seems to go back to, "then do they even need to be dating?" It's just dead-end fluff.
Also, I forgot in my earlier reply to when you said "maybe you're asexual." Seriously?? This is the kind of absolute bull crap I'm talking about. Stop putting everyone in emotion-dictated boxes. You're only confusing and trapping people and it helps absolutely no one.
How about: maybe everyone has free will and that's enough.
Yeah, I think we both made our points and will just be repeating ourselves if we keep it up too much longer.
But just to the part about kids getting in relationships to learn from them... I still don't see why they have to be romantic relationships? By that I mean kissing and cuddling and holding hands like in these books.
If you see someone is good for you then by all means, do that when you're ready. It just seemed kind of stupid for teenagers.Like Percy and Annabeth falling asleep together. Ooookaaaay? Really nice thing to encourage kids to do for no good reason.
They seemed to be getting to know each other just fine without that stuff. Even if they had romantic *feelings* there was just no reason for their mushy actions since they were just kids on an adventure? (not that what they do is the worst, but for an example of how I got the impression Rick Riordan was over-prioritizing romance a lot here).
Remember Percy admitted he still felt like he "didn't really understand Annabeth" yet. Kissing helps you get to know people...?
Also to clarify, when I said complimentary I was just saying their bodies aren't even made to work together sexually. Not that being sexual was the whole point of a romantic relationship. Though if neither party has hope for sex potentially being a part of it eventually, that kind of seems to go back to, "then do they even need to be dating?" It's just dead-end fluff.
Also, I forgot in my earlier reply to when you said "maybe you're asexual." Seriously?? This is the kind of absolute bull crap I'm talking about. Stop putting everyone in emotion-dictated boxes. You're only confusing and trapping people and it helps absolutely no one.
How about: maybe everyone has free will and that's enough.
Brown wrote: "Yeah, I think we both made our points and will just be repeating ourselves if we keep it up too much longer...."Brown are you getting the Last book in the Series?
I think sequels are like heroes and villians in the batman movie "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". These squeals started off good but the slowly declined to where they are now, I don't know if it's because I'm older or if it is because they just suck.
"You either finish a Trilogy, or write long enough to see your characters suck".
Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cecerose wrote: "Brown wrote: ""Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questi..."Yup. We are going in circles.
As for HoH (we seem to finally be getting back to the discussion point), I already mentioned that I think the relationships there are not exactly realistic. As for making Percabeth canon, you obviously do not exactly ship them, while I do, so for me, I wholeheartedly do not mind this at all. As for why a romantic relationship between Percy and Annabeth is even needed in the first place and why Rick Riordan chose to make them into gf/bg...well. First of all, I highly doubt it was because a friendship wasn't "good enough". His relationship was Annabeth isn't more important than his relationship with his mom or lets say, Grover or Tyson. I'm also pretty sure it was Rick's intention from the beginning for them to end up together.
I think you're focusing too much on the kissing / cuddling stuff without actually analyzing the nuances of their relationship. I'm pretty sure anyone who picks up the Lightning Thief can immediately tell that Percy and Annabeth are going to end up together...that's a main part of what makes their specific relationship unique, and Rick's original intention causes their relationship to be something more than just friendship. There are literally hints everywhere about this, from the very first book. This in itself is one of the defining elements of their relationship. (Defining =/= most important, but without it, their relationship would be a lot different).
Also, have you ever been emotionally invested in a ship before? (Judging from your posts, I don't think you quite understand how it is for fans who are). People would probably stake Rick alive if he broke Percabeth apart. Are you going to shit on those who DO support Percabeth, even if you don't? Ship or don't ship whatever.
Percabeth (or really any relationship in this series or really any relationship ever) is not perfect. It will never be 100% perfect. But that does not make it useless or fruitless or whatever. A romantic relationship isn't useless if it doesn't fit your definition.
Ultimately, they didn't HAVE to be, and that's the beauty of the relationship. They both made the decision that they wanted more out of it (in a romantic sense). In the end, that's the only thing that matters. The fact that they both wanted it (not that they felt pushed or anything) should be enough. This answer probably won't satisfy you, but atm I feel that no answer really will unless it agrees with your point, so whatevs.
I think that you seem to be kind of age biased. When I say that, I mean that you're acting like anyone who's young doesn't understand this or that as well as someone such as you, as shown by your extreme emphasis on kids this, kids that, etc. While obviously age is a factor in maturity / intelligence, it is not necessarily the main factor, and I feel that you are quite patronizing to those younger than you, under the guise of "I'm trying to do what's best for you".
No one said kissing helps you know people.......... I said that literally dating in itself helps you, not specifically kissing. Yes, kissing is more about pleasure, but it does increase intimacy between people.
Also newsflash: there is a thing such as gay sex!!!!! Maybe you can't procreate naturally (by the way there is that in vitro fertilization thing or whatever), but it's still sex, so yeah there isn't no way of being sexual. There's just no way of being sexual that YOU approve of, apparently. (btw, I'm pretty sure more heterosexual couples perform anal sex than homosexual couples. just some food for thought. although you probably see this as a way of how "lust deteriorates society" or something). I literally don't care, as I've said before, as long as there is consent from both parties.
Also, that thing you said about asexuals pisses me off. It's not "bullcrap". I'm not putting anyone in emotion-dictated boxes. There are literally people out there who identify as asexual and YOU dismissing it as a trap seems more like a device you turn to because you don't really understand this. Do your research. If someone wants / needs to label themself as asexual, there is a REASON. Not because people are pressuring them to do so (ironically, in fact more people usually wish that they WEREN'T asexual, as shown by your own post, as people don't exactly understand what it is. I'm 300% sure that people would rather "trap and confuse" people as heterosexual rather than asexual.) I literally said this in a different post. The reason people are confused in the first place because people like you literally deny its existence, when there has been a fair amount of research on it.
Same with people that don't want to label themselves. That's totally fine. Obviously you don't believe in labels, but that doesn't apply for everyone. If you don't want to label themselves, that's fine. But don't shit on someone else who does. They know how they feel, not you. I'm pretty sure you get my point as I've repeated this so many times already.
AND YES, PEOPLE HAVE FREE WILL. SOME PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LABEL THEMSELVES. SOME DO NOT. IT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE TO LABEL THEMSELF IF THEY WANT, AND VICE VERSA.
Obviously, free will also means that people are free to label themselves as asexual, etc. And some people choose not to.
WHO. CARES. I know you're probably tired of hearing me say this, and I am tired of repeatedly typing it, but it still is a valid reason.
I think we both explained ourselves too many times already, and that this is really going nowhere. We don't agree, and reiterating similar points multiple times isn't going to change that.
That information about Nico kinda took me by surprise because that was like the last thing that I was expecting to hear, so I was kinda upset at first. I don't have any problems with his sexual orientation but I was upset because it kinda ruined the whole image that I had painted in my head about him. And I thought it was unfair how he had so much loaded on him. I mean first he is the son of hades and people naturally don't like him and with this added he is left to feel much worse cuz he's feeling left out and stuff. I was hoping things getting a little easier for him because at least the seven people in the prophecy are like warming up to him and stuff. But now I guess I'm okay with the whole thing even though it's so far from the direction that I was expecting his character to head towards. I still find him cool as I always did. It's never going to be the same, but I guess I can adjust to that.
Léna wrote: "OH MY GOD THE HOMOPHOBIC COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD IS LITERALLY KILLING ME..."Leave your medical information and next of kin so we can give the relevant authorities.
Wow I haven't been on here in ages O.o
Nico being homosexual made me so happy. I'm proud to see how Rick put this in his book. It makes the characters seem more real and easier to relate to by going through struggles thousands of people face everyday. And for those angry that it is in a children's book, its not going to make them homosexual if they aren't, if anything it will just show them it is out their and help them accept it.
Okay guys, I'm really not in the mood to type a wall of text, so how about this:A BOOK IS NOT NECESSARILY A POLITICAL STATEMENT
Especially a children's fantasy book. By now there are two reasons Rick & team (editors, publishers etc.) are involved in it.
1. (mostly specific to Rick) Emotional attachment. Many writers, myself included, get attached to their characters and world.
2. Money
That's all. C'est ca. Nothing else. Zilch. Zero.
STOP READING INTO IT. Whether or not a character is gay or not, and whether or not you agree with that, has little to do with it. If it stops your enjoyment of the book, you don't enjoy the book. If you think it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.
Yes, this will provoke argument. Yes, there will be some assholes insisting it's not right, it's not appropriate, it goes against God. Yes there will be people who don't care. Yes there will be people who simply think it doesn't add to the plot (by the way a book isn't simply a plot. Other writers will understand when I say characters and character development just happens, and other readers will understand when I say we get attached to the characters.)
I'm not too sure what I set out to achieve with this post. Just stop obsessing over this one scene. Please.
Unbroken Silence wrote: "Just stop obsessing over this one scene. Please..."Oh they will, the next book is out soon and I'm sure it will have more of this so be prepared for 5000 posts(seeing as that is the last book)about what ever is the next Nico "plot twist" in the last book.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Sword of Summer (other topics)The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Opinions can be negative.