I've seen people arguing with a straight girl, interrogating her as to the validity of her preferences.

But does that mean that her preferences inherently require defending, or that people can be prejudiced and judgmental?

I know there are plenty of people who question some of the choices I have made, but I don't feel obligated to justify those choices to any of them.

I think lunabird put it very well: I should no more have to defend my relationship orientation than I should have to defend: my sexual orientation, my handedness, my gender, that green beans taste inedible to me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

But does that mean that her preferences inherently require defending, or that people can be prejudiced and judgmental?

Why is that an either or? People can be prejudiced and judgmental, and in fact this essay is about that they shouldn't do that. But the fact that they shouldn't doesn't make everyone agree with you.

There are plenty of things that shouldn't happen: murder, rape, theft, the making of more Land Beyond Time movies. To act as though those things never existed, and thus we've solved the problem, is to be foolish. People will require defending because people will judge. Perhaps they shouldn't, but that also doesn't mean that Atticus should throw up his hands and tell the court they have no case, this is bullshit, and walk out.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

People will require defending because people will judge.

Exactly. It's people who require defenses, not the behavior itself. In describing your friend's reason as "eminently defensible," you implied that there were reasons which would not be defensible, and that you (or some other objective entity) were qualified to judge which is which.

I think I understand your intent. Some of your language seems to confer a personal judgment, however, and I am just wondering whether you thought about that when you chose your words. The general gist of your post - people shouldn't judge other people's choices - I'm in total agreement with that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

In describing your friend's reason as "eminently defensible," you implied that there were reasons which would not be defensible, and that you (or some other objective entity) were qualified to judge which is which.

I do believe there are reasons that are considerably less defensible. For example, "Well, he goes out and fucks whoever he wants, often without protection, because he's lonely, but I'm his sub and I shouldn't risk forming emotional connections to other lovers."

That'd be straight-up bullshit, and I'd say so.

I know it's all lovely to say that people's choices are all wonderful and we should never judge, but particularly when it's phrased in terms of "good reasons" and "bad reasons," there are some pretty potentially toxic reasons that cause problems later on.

If you took away that people shouldn't judge other people's choices, that's a terrible misreading. It's that people's judgments are often harsh and inaccurate, particularly when it comes to trying to push their way of life... But to then jump to the idea that all choices are equal assumes that all humans have a perfect understanding of what will make them happy, and that's demonstrably not so.

This is me, saying this judgment that is often given by people is inaccurate. I have other opinions that state that the judgments often given by people (say, sending cock shots to women as a way of wooing them) are pretty spot-on. Nothing makes me an authority beyond a study of human nature, but if you don't like it? Then ignore me. Worst I'll do is think you're a choad.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)