Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation from the norm...

[Kheldarson]

It's not verbatim, but just about everyone who has posted a counter to my position.

I'm supposed to have whatever "consensus" opinion, I guess.

No, you just have to have an opinion that's actually in relation to the topic we're discussing, not introduce a side topic and try to make that the real one.

[mjr]

No, you just have to have an opinion that's actually in relation to the topic we're discussing, not introduce a side topic and try to make that the real one.

I think I do, and I think I've illustrated that.

If that opinion isn't accepted, well, I really can't do much about it, can I?

[Kheldarson]

I think I do, and I think I've illustrated that.

If that opinion isn't accepted, well, I really can't do much about it, can I?

Except you're discussing the premise and the conversation was about the intent and audience reaction. Complete opposite ends of the story.

[mjr]

Except you're discussing the premise and the conversation was about the intent and audience reaction. Complete opposite ends of the story.

Isn't the premise based upon the intent, though?

And why is the premise "off limits" to discussion?

[Canarr]

Isn't the premise based upon the intent, though?

And why is the premise "off limits" to discussion?

Yes, the premise is based on the intent. No, the premise is not off-limits to the discussion.

But neither is the premise necessarily relevant to the discussion. Sure, one can discuss the premise, but you are doing this at a level where it's frankly bordering on trolling. It's like entering a discussion on Star Trek plotlines and telling everybody that FTL travel is impossible, Einstein said so, and they're all "superficial" for even discussing this topic.

[mjr]

No, the premise is not off-limits to the discussion.

Based upon the responses to my posts, it certainly seems that way.

But neither is the premise necessarily relevant to the discussion.

I disagree, obviously. Because as I said earlier, if the premise is based upon the intent, then I would posit that the premise is just as relevant to the discussion as the intent, otherwise the premise is either flawed or disjointed from the discussion. I can't help it you guys aren't getting your way as far as my perspective on this goes, and I threw a wrench in your happy little discussion, with a perspective none of you will even seem to consider before rejecting. Seems like many of you don't like it, because it's not a perspective you "agree with", and doesn't fit yours.

I just happen to see things differently.

Sure, one can discuss the premise, but you are doing this at a level where it's frankly bordering on trolling.

In what way? I mean, isn't the entire point of the discussion (and, by extension the film) about "looking at something a different way"? That's all I'm doing.

Are you saying that you and the others participating in this thread are actually against something they're advocating ("Look at this from a different perspective")? Just asking.

It's like entering a discussion on Star Trek plotlines and telling everybody that FTL travel is impossible, Einstein said so, and they're all "superficial" for even discussing this topic.

Not necessarily. It's more like discussing it on a "surface level" rather than going into the theoretical hows and whys behind it. Because let's be honest, in the context of the film, and Star Trek, we're all dealing with the theoretical.

But hey, if you or anyone else doesn't want me contributing to this discussion, I'll be happy to bow out. Anyone who doesn't want me contributing, just say so. No skin off my back. It may say more than you want it to, though.

[the_std]

But hey, if you or anyone else doesn't want me contributing to this discussion, I'll be happy to bow out. Anyone who doesn't want me contributing, just say so. No skin off my back. It may say more than you want it to, though.

This is a debate forum. If you can't handle having your opinions dissected, torn apart and scrutinized, you're posting in the wrong place. No one besides you has said anything about you leaving. What they have said is that this debate with you seems pointless because, whether you want to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts in this discussion to suit your arguments (arguing about the premise of the film instead of the content, then saying that everyone else is the one who isn't keeping an open mind).

Pro tip - this forum tends to lean liberal, gay-accepting and open-minded. If you can't handle being in the minority and having to defend your arguments, play somewhere else.

[mjr]

This is a debate forum. If you can't handle having your opinions dissected, torn apart and scrutinized, you're posting in the wrong place. No one besides you has said anything about you leaving.

I'm not talking about leaving the forum as a whole. I'm just suggesting that if you guys who claim you're SO open minded but can't handle a contradictory opinion don't want me to post on this thread, I won't. All you gotta do is ask.

What they have said is that this debate with you seems pointless because, whether you want to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts in this discussion to suit your arguments

No, I'm basing my argument on the premise as it is in the title of this thread. Nothing more.

Then saying that everyone else is the one who isn't keeping an open mind.

Is that not true? Or is it only "keeping an open mind to positions you agree with"? I've never known ANY liberal who says they're "open minded" to be convinced of anything contradictory to what they believed. I have known Conservatives like that. I examine and re-examine my positions quite frequently.

Pro tip - this forum tends to lean liberal, gay-accepting and open-minded. If you can't handle being in the minority and having to defend your arguments, play somewhere else.

I've got no issue being in the minority. You're gonna have a hard time selling me on "open-minded", though, at least in the context of this thread.

[Canarr]

No, I'm basing my argument on the premise as it is in the title of this thread. Nothing more.

The title of the thread is, "Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation". But, you're not doing that. You're basically saying, "Well, I tried imagining that, doesn't seem believable to me."

That's not joining a discussion. That's negating the point of the discussion. Which is okay, but then I have to ask, why join the discussion in the first place? Why spent post after post trying to convince people that what they want to discuss doesn't make sense? Why not disregard the topic entirely?

Anyone on Fratching is invited to join a discussion. But you're not interested in joining this discussion, you just want to convince people that this discussion is pointless. So, again: if you don't want to discuss, why are you here (i.e., in this thread)?

[mjr]

The title of the thread is, "Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation". But, you're not doing that. You're basically saying, "Well, I tried imagining that, doesn't seem believable to me."

And it doesn't seem believable to me. Although I will point out that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the percentages would be flipped (because we really don't know, since we're dealing in theoreticals), and that it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that if one is straight in one world they would be gay in the other. I don't see how I can make that any more clear.

Why spent post after post trying to convince people that what they want to discuss doesn't make sense?

Because sometimes that's the case.

you just want to convince people that this discussion is pointless. So, again: if you don't want to discuss, why are you here (i.e., in this thread)?

No, no. Not "pointless". Just a little more deeply considered.

[Lindsay B.]

with a perspective none of you will even seem to consider before rejecting

Did we not?

Several people have talked about whether or not a society in which same-sex attraction and relationships are the norm could biologically sustain itself. A few agreed that it was, arguably, a flaw in the film's premise.

For my own part, I would agree with those who have said that this society would likely perpetuate itself by the simple desire to experience the joy of raising a child and having a family. The process of having and raising a child is fraught with obstacles, sacrifices, and difficulties as it is, so why should one more obstacle stop anybody? It certainly hasn't stopped a great many couples in the real world (same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples who are unable to have children of their own).

If artificial insemination is not an option, then I would guess that the same-sex couples of this world would view having sex with a member of the opposite sex as an unpleasant physical labor (so to speak), but one that is necessary to accomplish the goal of having children. Would it be so much worse than what women must already endure during pregnancy and childbirth?

I would observe that among the homosexual majority of this alternate reality, most parents are likely to be lesbian women, rather than gay men. Not because women are necessarily more likely to want children than men, but because I suspect that it would be a great deal easier to find a man who's willing to be a sperm donor than it is to find a woman who's willing to be a surrogate mother.

Ginger Tea speculated that the population of the alternate world would have to be smaller than it is in the real world. I can grant this, not only because of the greater difficulty that same-sex couples would face in having children, but also because there are a great many "unplanned pregnancies" in the real world. A same-sex couple would not have that issue. Any pregnancy they were involved in would, by necessity, have to be planned.

What posters have, in general, consistently rejected is the idea that this society not being biologically viable (if that really is the case) somehow invalidates the entire film, and its message. As has been pointed out, fiction often requires a suspension of disbelief. In this case, in my opinion, it doesn't even require all that much.

It honestly never made much sense to me that the film depicted football as a girls' sport in this alternate reality, or that acting was viewed as being "for boys." I mean, why wouldn't a school football team prefer to fill their ranks with the physically largest, strongest, and heaviest players available to them, i.e. boys? And the theater productions I've been involved in would have been very awkward if we'd only had actors of one gender. But those were the reversed gender norms that the filmmaker went with, and I have seldom seen a film, television show, book, or story that I didn't disagree with in some respect, anyway. So I suspended my disbelief and went along with it.

As we keep saying, the film is about prejudice and bullying, not about how difficult it is for same-sex couples to have children.

it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that if one is straight in one world they would be gay in the other

Nobody has rejected the hypothetical of there being two worlds, with any given person being straight in one and gay in the other.

What is being rejected is the idea that that is the only possible hypothetical for an alternate reality in which homosexuality is the norm.

I honestly don't understand why you seem to find it so impossible to accept that the film is depicting an alternate reality populated by fictional characters, and the viewer is simply being asked to imagine visiting or living in this fictional world, just as he/she is.

Perhaps you are thinking that if everybody in the real world lived in this fictional world, with the same sexual orientation that they have in the real world, then the alternate reality would not have a "reversed" majority, and the premise would be defeated. Which is true, but the film isn't asking you to imagine yourself along with every other person in the world living in this alternate reality. It's only asking you to imagine yourself, or perhaps yourself and your loved ones, being in this alternate world.

How about this :

The ratio of straight to gay people might be reversed in this alternate world, but perhaps that doesn't mean that every single individual has a reversed sexual orientation. If, for example, some people are straight in both worlds and a roughly equal number are gay in both worlds, and the rest of the population is reversed, then the ratio of straight to gay people would be reversed, but there would still be some people who have the same orientation in both worlds. The difference is that those people would be part of the majority in one world and in the persecuted minority in the other.

I don't see how I can make that any more clear.

Funny, that was exactly what I was thinking when I, and others, were trying to explain that there were other possible hypotheticals beyond the one rigidly defined idea of everybody who is straight in one world being necessarily gay in the other.

For all of your talk about being open-minded, you are the one who is refusing to accept as viable any hypothetical other than the one you're suggesting.

[Lindsay B.]

the film could make a good impact on people who are more "on the fence" about LGBT issues
even among those who do actively support LGBT rights, a film like this might inspire increased action, concern, and understanding
Every little bit helps.

You know, it's interesting ... When I read this, it gave me cause to reconsider a position I'd had on a separate issue.

Earlier this year, I was doing a fair bit of reading about that woman in Pennsylvania who opened a pop-up shop with a two-tiered pricing system : Female customers received a 24% discount on anything they bought, while male customers had to pay the full price. It was a non-profit set up as a satire of the gender wage gap. The shop was more of a form of social activism than an actual business.

Interestingly enough, I saw some feminist women who sharply criticized the shop owner, arguing (among other things) that she was only making the situation worse by creating more inequality.

They also observed that there were many men who were supportive of the shop owner's message and bought items from her just to show their support. The female commentors said that while this was very noble, these men were ultimately only hurting themselves (by paying more for items than they needed to) and not really helping anybody.

(Honestly ... If my husband wanted to buy something from this shop, I would probably just tell him to give me the money and let me go buy it for him.)

One criticism made of the shop owner was that she was "preaching to the choir," since all of the men who were speaking supportively of the shop were almost certainly men who were already supportive of wage equality, anyway. By and large, the only men, or women for that matter, who would patronize the shop were those who were already on the shop owner's side.

I was actually sympathetic to this point of view until I read your post, Anthony, and thought that maybe the shop owner is making some sort of impact. Those who were lukewarm in their support of the issue, or even those who were actively supporting it, might have a different, stronger take on it if they actually experience it firsthand, in actual dollars and cents. In some form, at least.

It's possible.

[Ginger Tea]

One thing I didn't see brought up much if at all (aside from my own posts) is there would be a similar percentage of bi people around.

Society could look away at their lifestyles so long as the straight part was expressed solely as part of the breeding program.

I said before and I will say again, even in this world there are men and women who are adamant that they would never sleep with the opposite sex even to get a child they desire, but with IVF thats not really an issue.

These people and their beliefs are counter productive to the sustainability of the species in the times before medical advancement.

IVF would spring about way sooner than it did, that's a given, but also consider the transgenders.

Society has become more open to people who have or are transitioning and within the realms of open minded people a transwoman having sex with a woman is seen as lesbianism, even though there is a penis still involved.

Not every woman would be down for such a scenario in this world, but in the hypothetical one presented?

We are gradually seeing people for who they are becoming and not who they were, so a fertile transwoman would be beneficial in this society and again, just as IVF, cosmetic surgery would advance.

With one small problem, in this world the goal is to become a woman as physically as possible, in the other she ceases to be of use post surgery so I think she and transmen would be kept as a perpetual 3rd sex.

Is this a bad thing?
For those with dysphoria yes, but how many transwomen in the porn industry actually aim to fully transition?

You could say that they are doing porn as it gets money in quicker, but they get the money because of their novelty, once they have a vagina they could vanish from the scene, not because they got what they wanted out of it and no longer wish to work in the industry, but they lack that je ne se qua and the audience moves on.

So are transwomen in the porn industry trans or just milking a fetish whilst they look good?
No idea, some might, but TBH I'm not that fussed to find out.

But lets say that a large percentage are in fact just in it for the money as exotic performers, this gets us back to the AU.

Not all male phobic lesbians are anti dildo and transwomen are not "men in dresses" so it's just like having strap on sex with your partner, it's just that this one has "realistic ejaculation action".

Some gay men have said they don't want to see a vagina on their male partner, which confuses me somewhat, I get the whole I want a cock aspect, but if you are the top in the relationship, women and transmen still have anus' and as long as you finish in the right hole "how do baby form?"

Yes in the AU transgender people would be exploited and perhaps denied transitional rights to suit a biological niche, but there is no reason to say that those chosen to be the "3rd sex" are not content with living 20 years of their life as a woman and then transition back to male, or vise versa.

As after all, not all cross dressers, drag queens Transvestites etc are gay or bi.

And the old adage, "I'm not gay but $20 is $20"

[Greenday]

It's not verbatim, but just about everyone who has posted a counter to my position.

I'm supposed to have whatever "consensus" opinion, I guess.

Please. I regularly have a different opinion from the rest of Fratching. And there's a difference between feeling like you are supposed to have the consensus opinion (Which I feel regularly here but that's another topic) and trying to argue a point that honestly has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your argument has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You are arguing that hypotheticals are stupid which if that's what you believe, don't get involved in the first place. There's no reason to.

[Gravekeeper]

I agree with Greenday. As per unofficial Fratching rules, this means you are disqualified and have to leave the island.