Some People Are Dumb

[Sneakypants]

Wait...wait...

All this shit is happening over a hypothetical situation??

A choice that you would never ever be given in real life?

It's Interesting how badly people overreact and try to use this as an opportunity to claim as much manly real eastate as possible. It is what it is, people.

 

[Sneakypants]

LoL at my Ajs statement

to Sneak: You actually let that shit get under you? wtf dont let the immature knock you off your level

WTF are you even talking about? It's a discussion.
In fact, WTF are you EVER talking about?

 

[Sneakypants]

There are exceptions of course, who would sooner do the grossest person they could imagine, of the right gender for them, than the wrong gender for them. Which is fine too - most people prioritize non-disgustingness over correct gender, but for some it's the other way around. This is not in and of itself homophobia.

However, you *are* getting into the realm of homophobia if you start labeling people in the other camp and looking down on them, in a sort of "I'm straighter than you" way. This applies to both camps, by the way, both the "I'm so straight that I wouldn't ever touch a guy" and the "I'm so confident in my straightness that I could touch a guy and still call myself straight".

QFT and emphasis.

 

[Winklewil]

Well, crap. I knew that Blancho was cruising for a banning, what with his utterly serious support for homosexual genocide, but I'm still kind of disappointed that I missed so many of his posts while I was sleeping.

Can someone fill me in via PMs?


On-topic:

Dude lol maggots in her genitalia? A person of this description would be dead. Let me revise my banging order:

Not necessarily ... I've seen and read descriptions of maggots infesting dead flesh hosted within living flesh. Still, if that bothers you, remove that one description. She's no longer dead. Did that really make that big of a difference? It was one out of nine mental images I painted, I believe, and the woman in question has changed very little. I think I've still made my point.

I mean really though... that isnt leaving any option but to say youre gay.

No, no, and NO. This is the single greatest point that people keep going in circles over, and it's the thing that a lot of guys just can't seem to grasp.

The only option, in face of the ultimate disgust with the female alternative, is NOT to say that "you're gay." For the Love of God, I don't know how many times this can be said, but a single act of homosexual sex is not going to convert you to lifelong homosexuality. The whole point of the exercise is to point out that you can have a one time boy-fling WITHOUT being gay, particularly if it's only done because the alternative is far worse.

I can kill myself afterwards, knowing I can never use my disease-ridden penis again, but i'd go to the grave knowing i'd never done a guy.

And herein lies another point that you've conveniently made for me. It's not even about which would actually gross you out more, at this point ... you're more disturbed by the "principle" of sleeping with another man. You would literally rather DIE.

It wouldn't matter to you if it was possible to surgically alter Brad Pitt to look like Heidi Klum -- oh, if you weren't aware of it, you'd choose the Klum look-alike every time (and probably have a blast in the process), and come away with fond memories. If we informed you later, however, that Klum was Pitt in disguise, you'd be retroactively devastated, simply because you're deeply uncomfortable with the idea of it. Your response, that you'd literally rather die knowing you stuck to your hetero guns, shows a psychological, societal root for your reaction ... you're literally scared of the notion, at this point, rather than simply disgusted. It's no longer about "Well, which would make peepee deflate less?"

It's about "Well, one of those just disgusts me, the other terrifies me, so I'll go with Door Number One."

 

[Winklewil]

I would just pick a fold (the sweat would make excellent lube) and go to town and be done with it.

I hadn't considered that. Point for you.

and before people start, why do you get to do anything with brad pitt (like a hand job, blow job, etc), but have to put it in the diseased woman's vag?

You might as well ask why the woman has to be ugly, and the guy has to be beautiful ... it's designed this way to paint a picture of the farthest extreme imaginable, to find the "breaking point." You kind of copped out of the game already, because you're trying to push the parameters of the choice that was set out for you. Granted, it wasn't done as badly as some of the "I choose my hand!" people (who are disqualified), but you still stepped over the line a bit.

So, once more: if IT had to be vaginal sex with the lady, scabs scraping against your phallus and all, or mutual masturbation with Pitt, which would you pick?

I'm also atheist, but I'd like to say "GOD BLESS YOU, WINK!" for the "freshly-showered Matt Damon" image back on page one.

You're quite welcome, heh ... you might want to skip the mental imagery, however, that I later laid out for the female side of things. It was kind of designed to make my point that everyone has that "line" they won't cross, and ... well, just skip it. You'll be happier not knowing.

Complete no-brainer for me: I'll take Brad Pitt. Glad I'm gay, since it takes the edge off that decision.

You don't get off that easily, my friend ... you've got to play the game with these two (images courtesy of Miros, who kindly volunteered his own choice at the same time):

Door Number One
Door Number Two

 

[Veovis]

Well, crap. I knew that Blancho was cruising for a banning, what with his utterly serious support for homosexual genocide, but I'm still kind of disappointed that I missed so many of his posts while I was sleeping.

Can someone fill me in via PMs?


On-topic:


Not necessarily ... I've seen and read descriptions of maggots infesting dead flesh hosted within living flesh. Still, if that bothers you, remove that one description. She's no longer dead. Did that really make that big of a difference? It was one out of nine mental images I painted, I believe, and the woman in question has changed very little. I think I've still made my point.


No, no, and NO. This is the single greatest point that people keep going in circles over, and it's the thing that a lot of guys just can't seem to grasp.

The only option, in face of the ultimate disgust with the female alternative, is NOT to say that "you're gay." For the Love of God, I don't know how many times this can be said, but a single act of homosexual sex is not going to convert you to lifelong homosexuality. The whole point of the exercise is to point out that you can have a one time boy-fling WITHOUT being gay, particularly if it's only done because the alternative is far worse.


And herein lies another point that you've conveniently made for me. It's not even about which would actually gross you out more, at this point ... you're more disturbed by the "principle" of sleeping with another man. You would literally rather DIE.

It wouldn't matter to you if it was possible to surgically alter Brad Pitt to look like Heidi Klum -- oh, if you weren't aware of it, you'd choose the Klum look-alike every time (and probably have a blast in the process), and come away with fond memories. If we informed you later, however, that Klum was Pitt in disguise, you'd be retroactively devastated, simply because you're deeply uncomfortable with the idea of it. Your response, that you'd literally rather die knowing you stuck to your hetero guns, shows a psychological, societal root for your reaction ... not really a "Well, which would make peepee deflate less?" thing.

Because I dont want to have sex with a man, no matter how grotesque the woman is, im wrong? That doesnt make any sense at all. Who cares if you can alter the dude to look like a woman? He's still a dude. One act of homosexuality may not make you a homo for life, but youre a homosexual for that moment. I am a straight man. I've never had a homosexual thought. I dont care if other people do, but I really dont think i'm wrong because I'd rather have sex with a woman than a man.

EDIT: Ontop of that, youre getting pretty way out with these scenarios. I believe the original question was would you rather do a 700lbs chick or Brad Pitt. Not would you do a surgically altered brad pitt or a 700lbs disease ridden woman who no one would ever fuck anyway. So I dont know where youre coming from with all this psycho babble. It boils down to this. You have sex with someone of the same gender as you; youre gay. You have sex with both genders, youre bi. You have sex with the opposite gender, youre straight. When did it become wrong to be straight?

 

[Mishaela]

Uhm, OK...What if the woman had a anti-rape condom (works like a beartrap)?

Going to bed, I expect an answer. =P


Also, it's just a theoretical game. There's nothing wrong with anyone's sexual orientation, just hafto keep to mind that the situation given would never, ever happen.

 

[Veovis]

If she had an anti-rape condom, then i'd be in a world of hurt, unless she was willing. And with her girth and apparent medical problems, I sure hope shes willing.

As to the last part.. It seems just the opposite, as anyone whos says that they'd do the chick instead of Brad Pitt is instantly called a homophobe. I dont think i'm a homophobe because I wouldnt do a guy. I think im an average heterosexual male with no desire to copulate with another of his gender. I just want to know why thats apparently a bad thing in this thread.

 

[Vilurum]

I think the idea that you're not getting is that there are a lot of straight-identified, seemingly well-adjusted guys in this thread who *don't* have any issues with being able to have a gay encounter (under weird stipulations too, not just because they feel like it) and still go on identifying as straight in spite of that. (And, in smaller number, some gay-identified, seemingly well-adjusted guys who similarly don't have any issues with being able to have a straight encounter and go on identifying as gay afterward.)

In other words, you're making this huge mental deal out of the concept, whereas they just shrug and move on. Or do you really think that a lesser-of-two-evils choice, made under duress, would be a total overhaul of your sexual identity and would scar you for life? I wouldn't *quite* label that as homophobia, but it's certainly getting there. (Remember - phobia means "fear", not just the expression of fear in the form of bigotry and/or violence and/or persecution.)

EDIT: And as I said before, it's *fine* to place greater value on your priority of "I want this gender" than your priority of "I want a non-disgusting person". Most people in this topic, as you can read, have those priorities in the other order, but it's fine to have them in that order too. But if so, then just ... say as much, and leave it at that. When you then go overboard about how horrible and inconceivable it is for you, all it does is make you look insecure about your own sexuality, and, again ... "afraid" of the alternatives.

 

[Veovis]

So, everyone else can post all they want about the topic, but I have to say my piece and move on when it comes under fire? How is that fair?

 

[Vilurum]

It's because you're assigning value and morals to "your piece", rather than a simple statement of what you would do. (Simple statement: "I'd go with the woman anyway, I prioritize gender over grossness even when it's that extreme." Value and morals: "I'd go with the woman anyway, I prioritize gender over grossness. Oh and, if I ever were with a man that thought is so horrible that I'd have to kill myself over it." See the difference?) At least, that's *my* reason for arguing with you.

And yeah, it really is a choice between "state your opinion and leave it at that" or "put more stake into it than just your opinion, and be prepared to have people disagreeing with you". You can't go spouting stuff like that and then take an oh-so-victimized "I was just stating my opinion like everyone else" attitude, doesn't work like that, seeing as you *weren't*.

(EDIT: Oh and, heading to bed now, and I want another 10+ more pages for me to read at work tomorrow.)

 

[Veovis]

Well to be perfectly honest with you, the killing myself part was a joke. I saw other people tossing around humor, I didnt see anything wrong with it at the time. Syphillus is vicious, but i'd still rather do the woman than the man.

 

[Sirelrohir]

If she had an anti-rape condom, then i'd be in a world of hurt, unless she was willing. And with her girth and apparent medical problems, I sure hope shes willing.

As to the last part.. It seems just the opposite, as anyone whos says that they'd do the chick instead of Brad Pitt is instantly called a homophobe. I dont think i'm a homophobe because I wouldnt do a guy. I think im an average heterosexual male with no desire to copulate with another of his gender. I just want to know why thats apparently a bad thing in this thread.

It's not a bad thing, and your not a homophobe. Your just wired to not want to screw people of the same sex.

I hadn't considered that. Point for you.


You might as well ask why the woman has to be ugly, and the guy has to be beautiful ... it's designed this way to paint a picture of the farthest extreme imaginable, to find the "breaking point." You kind of copped out of the game already, because you're trying to push the parameters of the choice that was set out for you. Granted, it wasn't done as badly as some of the "I choose my hand!" people (who are disqualified), but you still stepped over the line a bit.

So, once more: if IT had to be vaginal sex with the lady, scabs scraping against your phallus and all, or mutual masturbation with Pitt, which would you pick?

As for me, I would still pick the 700 lb woman because like i said earlier, I'd rather look and play with titties then bang away at pitts chisled mangina. I love me some titties. The issue of vaginal sex with this woman is moot. Theres probably a good foot of blubber to get through, and even tho im big, im not that big =D. If i did manage to reach your goal, well, damn more power to me.

I know that the point your trying to make is that everyone is a little bi, but what im telling you is this isnt the case, and its got nothing to do with being a homophobe. I am just not wired that way. If you are, then more power to you.

The problem here is everyone is tryin to label themselves and other people as gay or homophobe. I have no desire to have sex with a guy; does that make me a homophobe? If so, why?

PS. I wanna scissor dick cheney.

 

[Veovis]

It's not a bad thing, and your not a homophobe. Your just wired to not want to screw people of the same sex.



As for me, I would still pick the 700 lb woman because like i said earlier, I'd rather look and play with titties then bang away at pitts chisled mangina. I love me some titties. The issue of vaginal sex with this woman is moot. Theres probably a good foot of blubber to get through, and even tho im big, im not that big =D. If i did manage to reach your goal, well, damn more power to me.

I know that the point your trying to make is that everyone is a little bi, but what im telling you is this isnt the case, and its got nothing to do with being a homophobe. I am just not wired that way. If you are, then more power to you.

The problem here is everyone is tryin to label themselves and other people as gay or homophobe. I have no desire to have sex with a guy; does that make me a homophobe? If so, why?

PS. I wanna scissor dick cheney.

Thank you.

 

[Khajit]

If she had an anti-rape condom, then i'd be in a world of hurt, unless she was willing. And with her girth and apparent medical problems, I sure hope shes willing.

As to the last part.. It seems just the opposite, as anyone whos says that they'd do the chick instead of Brad Pitt is instantly called a homophobe. I dont think i'm a homophobe because I wouldnt do a guy. I think im an average heterosexual male with no desire to copulate with another of his gender. I just want to know why thats apparently a bad thing in this thread.

Because the gay population wants to beleive that the heterosexual population has at least some chance of sleeping with them if they made all the women on earth look ugly?

This entire thread/question is technically a setup for another one of those jokes about why white people are weird. Teabagging is another.
Would you guys just accept that people only wanna have sex with those that they are attracted to? in the case of straight men it's hot chicks and with gay men it's bradd pitt.
The question to begin with was stupid anyway and only good for setting up various jokes. If it was to prove that a man can have sex with another man and not be gay it doesnt work because the question somply proposes that the guy asked the question receives some bizzare form of rape since he's being forces to have sex when he doesnt want to in any way. Going to prison and ending up somones prison bitch doesnt make you gay so neither would choosing brad pitt in that situation. The question doesnt ask which are you more attracted to . It asks which disgusts you the least.

In order to even consider the question you also have to assume in your mind that it is true/happening hyothetically. As such to anyone realistically thinking about the situation while they are considering thier options it is a real possibility for the situation to occur. If I realistically was in that situation I still wouldnt want to have sex with either. Quite frankly it would be a compelling reason to become celibate.

I suppose now I'm a homophobe for not wanting to have sex with anyone I'm not attracted to regardless of thier gender huh? That is basically the gist of this thread atm from some people.

A similar question would be if a person was forced to choosing between shooting a black guy and a white guy.
Does choosing the black guy even if he didnt want to kill either make it a hate crime?
Does shooting either make him any less innocent of murder than somone who didnt get in that situation?
No it doesnt and any answer to that question wouldnt prove that x person is a murderer/rascist since to the end of the day a person who wasnt a murderer/rascist forced to do it that does't want to kill either person as well can make the same descisions as a murderer that feels the same way.(if you point out the murderer not wanting to kill as being strange just think of him as a serial murderer of Arabs)
For all those heterophobes out there I am not equating gay people to murderers or rascists. I am perfectly fine with you guys so long as you understand my dick/ass is off-limits just like it is to any woman I am not attracted to.
As for Ishy's question. Those traps can be easily disabled probably. if the woman is ugly she definetly has a dildo around somehwere due to lack of anyone wanting to touch her so just insert that in first to set off the trap.

ps: My previous post was a joke so consider my answer undefined/"take matters into my own hands".

 

[Rappa]

I'm curious how a hypothetical situation that will never happen can have a "wrong answer". I think both sides need to just chill out and not attack each other and just have fun with it.

Since it's hypothetical I'll pick a fun answer. I'd do Brad Pitt, because afterwards I could blackmail him into giving me money not to tell anyone he's a closet homo. Then after he gives me a shitload of money I'll just tell everyone anyway. Then when people see me out on the street they'll be like "Hey, aren't you the dude who banged Brad Pitt? How was he?" and I can reply "Eh, he doesn't perform well under pressure, if you catch my drift".

 

[Antor]

Saying it's "not gay" is the dumbest crock of shit I've ever read. Sorry. No matter how you cut it you're either porking a fat, ugly chick or you're gay. That's all there is to it. You're also somehow homophobic for choosing the straight answer (which is also a huge crock of bullshit).

I know a lot of you still haven't come out of the closet, but even playing the damned game and choosing a man is gay. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Andreva]

Well, something you have to realise: It'd be alot less embarrassing to your buddies if you fuck a hot guy then some ugly, fat ass chick. I mean seriously, how many times have you given a friend shit for some broad he hooked up with while drunk? Exactly. Now, let's say same friend fucked Brad Pitt. Sure, it was a gay thing to do, but hey, he fucked Brad Pitt. Props to him. And it makes a much better story.

 

[pakomen]

Well, something you have to realise: It'd be alot less embarrassing to your buddies if you fuck a hot guy then some ugly, fat ass chick. I mean seriously, how many times have you given a friend shit for some broad he hooked up with while drunk? Exactly. Now, let's say same friend fucked Brad Pitt. Sure, it was a gay thing to do, but hey, he fucked Brad Pitt. Props to him. And it makes a much better story.

I'd be like, "You put your dick in his butthole? lol. How many drinks did you have?"

 

[Darkdante]

Because the gay population wants to beleive that the heterosexual population has at least some chance of sleeping with them if they made all the women on earth look ugly?

lol.

That pretty much sums this thread up.

I have nothing against gay people, or fat people. But I would not make that choice, I could not make that choice even if punishment was on the line.

How a guy can have sex with something he views as disgusting is beyond my understanding. Unless of course you use Viagra.