What makes My Little Pony Friendship is Magic appeal to an older age group?

[T-block]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_episodes

4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

16/26 that don't really have a particularly girly focus. I'll let YOU pick =) Let me know which one though, so I can rewatch it too.

I would suggest 9, 10, or 24 as I thought they were pretty entertaining. I would say 21 illustrates my point best, but as you said, my argument loses strength if I force discussion to the one episode that suits my argument the most. So you pick.

I was thinking about your yin-yang argument, and I got to wondering... wouldn't it be more feminist if the dark horse were male? Then we would have good and kindness portrayed as the female princess, and the evil jealous antagonist portrayed as the male. When both are portrayed as female, it becomes clear that the difference between the two is age, and that the poor decisions made by Nightmare Moon can be attributed to inexperience rather than being male. Perhaps a lesson to listen to one's elders?

 

[Battlecow]

Aiight I choose #10 will watch tonight hopefully

Well, I don't think the show is "feminist" per se- some feminists would probably revile it, actually. I'm saying it aims itself at young girls who don't want any BOYS stinking up their show.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

I feel that the Nightmare Moon was morely about jealousy and loneliness than age. She was the little sister, but it didn't say that she was too immature to handle her end. I agree with you however that it would have been feminist to portray Nightmare as a male, because it could have created many more opportunities to have it taken as a male overlord situation. Having all of the main characters have the same gender gives the show a clear distinction between traits. Whereas having a male and a female as the main characters can have many underlying themes (also given that this IS a childrens show).

What i'm trying to say is that having characters that are all the same sex makes this show much easier to break down and decipher. I have been away, i finally caught up with the reading. Skipping over all the homosexual talk, i have come to talk about the same thing as T-Block. Alot of the themes APPEAR girly, because of the environment and character traits/subplots, whereas the main plot is a very unisex matter. Over A Barrel is probably the most mature plot the show has had, dealing with history subjects and the old fashioned Indians And Cowboys scenario. I would say another great episode example, is episode 15, Feeling Pinkie Keen. When i first watched this episode I assumed it was discussing religion in a much more primitive voice (not directly saying it's religion, but alot of faith conversation). This episode lacks many girly scenarios and is all about having one girl end up finding faith and believing in things that she can't disprove, but cannot prove as well. The only thing wrong with this episode is that it can be taken controversially, but it's probably tied, in my book, with Over A Barrel (21) in terms of mature plots.

 

[T-block]

Ugh, ep 10 scares me lol. But I'll rewatch it later too. Please keep in mind that Rarity (white pony with purple hair) is actually modelled after the girly archetype, so girly things she does are just part of her character.

Man, the implications of religion in 15 totally went over my head when I watched it o.o Thanks for that, Mink.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

Aiight I choose #10 will watch tonight hopefully

Well, I don't think the show is "feminist" per se- some feminists would probably revile it, actually. I'm saying it aims itself at young girls who don't want any BOYS stinking up their show.

The role of males in the series actually isn't taken as a Fairly Oddparents sort of way (that being, they don't want anything to do with each other), but more as a family/acquaintance sort of way. Personally, when i was a kid i didn't have any girls i hung out with often, i was always hanging out with other boys. It wasn't because i didn't want girls around because they're "icky". That statement probably could have been worded better, but the series is made to portray these girls as 18-24 (my guess). Alot of them work full time, or are studying. Alot of the things they do would be unsafe and too much for young children to be able to comprehend and take in. For example, Applejack works full time on a farm, she and her brother are in charge of the entire apple ranch, and AJ's prime concern is always doing whats better for her family. The gang went out to a Gala in episode 26, and AJ's sole reason for being there was not to enjoy the gala itself, but to sell apples to help her family. That's a pretty mature theme for a young child, much easier to portay these kinds of actions as someone who is much older.

Assuming that is what your implication was. If i misread what you meant i apologize.

 

[ph00tbag]

Please explain to me how I'm asserting a converse accident. I've reviewed the definition thereof and my arguments, and I don't see how I'm asserting any such thing.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but to my knowledge, a converse accident in deductive logic is making the claim, "if p then q. q, therefore p." Perhaps this isn't called a converse accident, and I'm mistaking it. But it's still a logical fallacy.

 

[Battlecow]

Nah, that's right.

What's my P and Q?

Is saying "Many feminine males are homosexual, therefore a disproportionate number of male viewers of a feminine show may be to some degree homosexual" a fallacy? If so-

"Many white people like Japanese animation. Therefore, white people are likely to be overrepresented in any group of American weeaboos"

That seems like common sense to me. Is it truly fallacious?

 

[ph00tbag]

Common sense isn't always valid. I can't state it any more plainly. Your conclusion is literally the converse of your premises. Or at least, your first conclusion. The one that set this whole debate off. Have you changed your position? Are you simply arguing now that some male viewers of the show are gay?

Hell, I can do that: Some men are gay. The adult male viewership of MLP represents a random sampling of men. Therefore there is a statistical likelihood that some of the male viewership is gay.

I don't even have to bring femininity into it. And that's because the femininity has nothing to do with whether they are gay or not. I suppose in retrospect your premise isn't as demonstrably false as I supposed, but the article I posted still argues why gender-nonconformity doesn't mean the nonconformist is gay. It means they have feminine traits. The supposition that they must be gay due to their non-conformity is a stereotype, reinforced by a culture where gender-nonconformity is not socially acceptable. But as I said before, the community of people that watch the show tolerates gender-nonconformity by necessity.

If straight men aren't required by their community to conform to a given set of gender norms, doesn't it follow that those who tend towards non-conformity would move back towards their equilibrium? Regardless of their sexual orientation?

 

[Battlecow]

Common sense isn't always valid. I can't state it any more plainly. Your conclusion is literally the converse of your premises. Or at least, your first conclusion. The one that set this whole debate off. Have you changed your position? Are you simply arguing now that some male viewers of the show are gay?

Hell, I can do that: Some men are gay. The adult male viewership of MLP represents a random sampling of men. Therefore there is a statistical likelihood that some of the male viewership is gay.

I don't even have to bring femininity into it. And that's because the femininity has nothing to do with whether they are gay or not. I suppose in retrospect your premise isn't as demonstrably false as I supposed, but the article I posted still argues why gender-nonconformity doesn't mean the nonconformist is gay. It means they have feminine traits. The supposition that they must be gay due to their non-conformity is a stereotype, reinforced by a culture where gender-nonconformity is not socially acceptable. But as I said before, the community of people that watch the show tolerates gender-nonconformity by necessity.

If straight men aren't required by their community to conform to a given set of gender norms, doesn't it follow that those who tend towards non-conformity would move back towards their equilibrium? Regardless of their sexual orientation?

My argument, as I said clearly and repeatedly, is that the MLP watching movement thingy was started by dudes with real or ironically assumed homosexuality, and that gays are overrepresented in its viewership. Not that "some of its male viewers are gay."

Once again, I never said that gender-nonconformity always implies gayness. I said that it often does. And it does; as your article said, gay men are more likely to be feminine than non-gay men. Femininity has a lot to do with whether they're gay or not; a greatly disproportionate number of gay men are effeminate. Effeminacy can therefore be taken as an imperfect indicator of homosexuality. It follows that men who pursue feminine pastimes such as watching MLP are disproportionately likely to be gay (again, keep in mind that the gayness in this case may be ironically assumed).

 

[Sieguest]

I have to say I'm pretty appalled at what I just read... from Battlecow at least. More than one person has told you that your premise is faulty at its core... and it seems a majority of the time, the only method you have to respond to an argument is through insulting them and then rehashing your point.

"Many feminine men are homosexual." The statement has no backing; why else would we consider it a stereotype? It excludes so many other different variables as to why a man may be more "feminine" compared to others, the biggest factor being all the variables involved in early childhood experiences. The things you call "girly" in the show is just what present day society has labeled as "girly". A rainbow is strictly an occurrence in science. Is the fact that it has a plethora of colors make it girly? Well how many different colors are in your house? If there is more than eight then you are officially feminine. The colors purple and pink are arbitrarily labeled as "girly". What prevents me from saying that orange is a color more representative of transvestites? Exactly, it fails to follow logically, same with purple and pink being "girly". All too often society arbitrarily links certain personality traits to certain things and there is really no grounds as to why this is. There's nothing scientific showing that most feminine men are gay. That's purely anecdotal. I could counter it by citing all of the times I've met who I thought was a gay man and he was actually straight.

You basically justify your argument on the idea that it is socially accepted as true. Going off of that basis, that meant those who subscribed to geocentricism were justified back in the day when everyone believed that the everything in the universe revolved around the earth. That would also mean that early explorers were justified in saying that if you went too far in any direction that you would fall off of the planet since it was flat, after all, it was socially accepted at the time.

MLP watching movement thingy was started by dudes with real or ironically assumed homosexuality, and that gays are overrepresented in its viewership. Not that "some of its male viewers are gay."

These are saying the same thing, just one is dancing around the bush. Semantics gets nowhere.

Once again, I never said that gender-nonconformity always implies gayness. I said that it often does. And it does; as your article said, gay men are more likely to be feminine than non-gay men. Femininity has a lot to do with whether they're gay or not; a greatly disproportionate number of gay men are effeminate. Effeminacy can therefore be taken as an imperfect indicator of homosexuality. It follows that men who pursue feminine pastimes such as watching MLP are disproportionately likely to be gay (again, keep in mind that the gayness in this case may be ironically assumed).

What you failed to point out is that these "studies" may be flawed due to the assumptions that are made in conducting them.

 

[ballin4life]

Femininity has a lot to do with whether they're gay or not; a greatly disproportionate number of gay men are effeminate. Effeminacy can therefore be taken as an imperfect indicator of homosexuality.

Suppose 90% of gay men but only 10% of non-gay men are effeminate, and 10% of men are gay. These numbers seem somewhat reasonable, in fact perhaps even skewed (especially on 90% of gay men being effeminate).

If a man is effeminate, what is the chance he is gay?

 

[Battlecow]

I have to say I'm pretty appalled at what I just read... from Battlecow at least. More than one person has told you that your premise is faulty at its core... and it seems a majority of the time, the only method you have to respond to an argument is through insulting them and then rehashing your point.

"Many feminine men are homosexual." The statement has no backing; why else would we consider it a stereotype? It excludes so many other different variables as to why a man may be more "feminine" compared to others, the biggest factor being all the variables involved in early childhood experiences. The things you call "girly" in the show is just what present day society has labeled as "girly". A rainbow is strictly an occurrence in science. Is the fact that it has a plethora of colors make it girly? Well how many different colors are in your house? If there is more than eight then you are officially feminine. The colors purple and pink are arbitrarily labeled as "girly". What prevents me from saying that orange is a color more representative of transvestites? Exactly, it fails to follow logically, same with purple and pink being "girly". All too often society arbitrarily links certain personality traits to certain things and there is really no grounds as to why this is. There's nothing scientific showing that most feminine men are gay. That's purely anecdotal. I could counter it by citing all of the times I've met who I thought was a gay man and he was actually straight.

You basically justify your argument on the idea that it is socially accepted as true. Going off of that basis, that meant those who subscribed to geocentricism were justified back in the day when everyone believed that the everything in the universe revolved around the earth. That would also mean that early explorers were justified in saying that if you went too far in any direction that you would fall off of the planet since it was flat, after all, it was socially accepted at the time.


These are saying the same thing, just one is dancing around the bush. Semantics gets nowhere.

What you failed to point out is that these "studies" may be flawed due to the assumptions that are made in conducting them.

I think that I died suddenly, and that an angry god condemned me for my many and heinous sins to a hell wherein every person I debate with uses the exact same idiotic tragically flawed logic. Think. Think for one minute. You (presumably) just read the thread. Your response was to be "appalled" at my rehashing of arguments, and then point out that rainbows and the colors pink and purple were not objectively girly. Really. If this were not hell, and if I was not doomed to post the same thing over and over again in the face of a firestorm of ever-increasing fool-gibberish, I would point out that I have already acknowledged this in my "augment" with your intellectual peer Dragoon Fighter. You then used the exact same argument that phootbag used, calling my distinction between "only gay guys watch MLP" and "gay guys are overrepresented in the MLP viewership" "semantics." I could respond. Or you could save us all a rehash and read what I wrote in response to him.

The crowning jewel of anti-logic which adorns your hell-forged armor of inanity is this: ""Many feminine men are homosexual." The statement has no backing; why else would we consider it a stereotype?" You are, in all sincerity, saying that the statement "many feminine men are homosexual" is untrue. Your support for this is that it's considered a stereotype, and therefore has no backing. This is after the very article which phootbag referenced to refute me acknowledged that gay men tend to be unusually feminine. Bravo, sir; either you managed to string together several grammatically flawless sentences while possessing an I.Q. lower than that of the average staple, or you are the greatest troll in the history of this thread. Interestingly enough, the last time I was compared to geocentrists was when arguing with a couple of 9/11 truthers. This conversation very much reminds me of that one. I could point out that I did not once use any argument related to an ad populum argument, but you would probably respond by asking me if I could prove that the CIA didn't control those planes using the telepaths they had stashed away from the war with Atlantis.

In response to ballin'- Your point is taken, and it's true that we shouldn't automatically assume homosexuality based on femininity. I did acknowledge that it was a flawed indicator, but perhaps the best recourse is simply to not judge individual people, idly, subconsciously, or otherwise.

 

[Sieguest]

I think that I died suddenly, and that an angry god condemned me for my many and heinous sins to a hell wherein every person I debate with uses the exact same idiotic tragically flawed logic. Think. Think for one minute. You (presumably) just read the thread. Your response was to be "appalled" at my rehashing of arguments, and then point out that rainbows and the colors pink and purple were not objectively girly. Really. If this were not hell, and if I was not doomed to post the same thing over and over again in the face of a firestorm of ever-increasing fool-gibberish, I would point out that I have already acknowledged this in my "augment" with your intellectual peer Dragoon Fighter. You then used the exact same argument that phootbag used, calling my distinction between "only gay guys watch MLP" and "gay guys are overrepresented in the MLP viewership" "semantics." I could respond. Or you could save us all a rehash and read what I wrote in response to him.

The crowning jewel of anti-logic which adorns your hell-forged armor of inanity is this: ""Many feminine men are homosexual." The statement has no backing; why else would we consider it a stereotype?" You are, in all sincerity, saying that the statement "many feminine men are homosexual" is untrue. Your support for this is that it's considered a stereotype, and therefore has no backing. This is after the very article which phootbag referenced to refute me acknowledged that gay men tend to be unusually feminine. Bravo, sir; either you managed to string together several grammatically flawless sentences while possessing an I.Q. lower than that of the average staple, or you are the greatest troll in the history of this thread. Interestingly enough, the last time I was compared to geocentrists was when arguing with a couple of 9/11 truthers. This conversation very much reminds me of that one. I could point out that I did not once use any argument related to an ad populum argument, but you would probably respond by asking me if I could prove that the CIA didn't control those planes using the telepaths they had stashed away from the war with Atlantis.

As I pointed out earlier you respond with Ad Hominem, you've made no refutation here. While you say you've acknowledged what I presented earlier in earlier discussions with people, you still continue to assert the same thing with nothing to actually counter their argument. One can't help but notice that even after phootbag accused you of posting semantics you still continue to do just that. Your post also makes it more than clear that you didn't really understand what I said at all. Due to lack of time I can't really be bothered to type out a bit by bit explanation of what I've said.

 

[Battlecow]

So, to recap, you're right, but you're too busy to explain why. I thoroughly refuted every point you made, explained why my clarification was not semantics, etc., and you now have to argue with the points I made if you want to continue. That's how debates work.

Take some friendly advice, bro, and get out of the thread while you still have some dignity.

 

[ph00tbag]

So how much of a role do people think nostalgia plays into the popularity of the show?

I think the actual impact of the elements that come from cartoon predecessors varies from person to person. I know for my part, the WB-inspired slapstick and nicktoon-esque situation humor are fun more because they're inherently funny, and the show actually does a fairly good job of making them all flow from within--it never feels forced. The fact that they clearly express the show's cartoon lineage doesn't really make me feel a particular way about the show at all.

Some people argue that the show is something of an oasis in a drought of good children's programming. I don't know how much this is true, because I don't watch much children's programming outside of MLP, but I feel like there are still shows out there that I've heard good things about. Maybe others can show me to be wrong, but I've heard good things about Yo Yo Gabba, and Spongebob Squarepants still seems to be making waves.

I think if nostalgia were all people needed, there's enough children's programming out there with redeeming qualities, so there has to be something more about MLP that makes people overlook the pink and purple veneer if they have other options for reliving their childhood.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

So how much of a role do people think nostalgia plays into the popularity of the show?

I would think quite a bit, I can not help but think loony toons when someone talks about pinkie pie, unless the subject is about cupcakes of course.

I think if nostalgia were all people needed, there's enough children's programming out there with redeeming qualities, so there has to be something more about MLP that makes people overlook the pink and purple veneer if they have other options for reliving their childhood.

Indeed nostalgia is not the only thing, as you said. You and a lot of people already pointed out, at least in my mind, as to the other reasons to this shows popularity.

 

[kataklysm336]

I feel that everyone is just caught up in trying not to be a bigot. Just because someone mentioned something that, at least superficially, seems to be "anti-gay" doesn't make their point any more or less valid. Sure, BattleCow can't point to a single scientific source that says "rainbows, and pink/purple, and ponies are ONLY favored by women and gay men" but let's be serious here people. We all know that shows with these things are geared towards girls, and that these things are very feminine (notice I did not say exclusively feminine).

We all get caught up in trying to disprove stereotypes, because we view them as a bad thing. Stereotypes are just generalizations. They are such because they represent most of the population. Just because there are outliers doesn't mean that the generalization, or stereotype, isn't true.

@Rainbow Mink - What is the purpose in making your posting space appear overly-feminine (in the sense that you have a female avatar, purple writing, and seem to main only feminine characters?) This is not a rhetorical question, or one meant to bash you, but seriously looking for an answer here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I feel that everyone is just caught up in trying not to be a bigot. Just because someone mentioned something that, at least superficially, seems to be "anti-gay" doesn't make their point any more or less valid. Sure, BattleCow can't point to a single scientific source that says "rainbows, and pink/purple, and ponies are ONLY favored by women and gay men" but let's be serious here people. We all know that shows with these things are geared towards girls, and that these things are very feminine (notice I did not say exclusively feminine).

We all get caught up in trying to disprove stereotypes, because we view them as a bad thing. Stereotypes are just generalizations. They are such because they represent most of the population. Just because there are outliers doesn't mean that the generalization, or stereotype, isn't true.

@Rainbow Mink - What is the purpose in making your posting space appear overly-feminine (in the sense that you have a female avatar, purple writing, and seem to main only feminine characters?) This is not a rhetorical question, or one meant to bash you, but seriously looking for an answer here.

The problem is that this stereotype simply is not even remotely accurate, and Battlecow was trying to use it to say that, well, we're getting more gay.

No, I mean, really. "Girly" is determined almost entirely by cultural elements, and "Gay" has nothing to do with girly. There is absolutely no correlation between homosexuals and "girly" behavior. At all. This is our problem. In fact, you even go and say "we all know..." No, we don't. Most of us know that that is actually false. And this isn't a case of a stereotype that is occasionally wrong, this is the case of a stereotype that is completely wrong. As in, straight men have approximately the same percentage of "girly" behavior as homosexuals. The stereotype is simply untrue.

 

[kataklysm336]

The problem is that this stereotype simply is not even remotely accurate, and Battlecow was trying to use it to say that, well, we're getting more gay.

So you would disagree that pink and purple are, at least in the US, considered feminine colors?

No, I mean, really. "Girly" is determined almost entirely by cultural elements, and "Gay" has nothing to do with girly. There is absolutely no correlation between homosexuals and "girly" behavior. At all. This is our problem. In fact, you even go and say "we all know..." No, we don't. Most of us know that that is actually false. And this isn't a case of a stereotype that is occasionally wrong, this is the case of a stereotype that is completely wrong. As in, straight men have approximately the same percentage of "girly" behavior as homosexuals. The stereotype is simply untrue.

This is exactly what I am talking about, not once did I ever say, or even imply that homosexuality and feminine behavior were linked. You assumed that I believed that, because you read my post as being "anti-gay", even though I never said anything like that.

My argument is that things can still be feminine even though they are also embraced by men. Purple, and pink, and rainbows are still "girly" whether we like it or not. It's a social thing.

Lastly, if you are going to quote me, at least do it right. I didn't say "All of us know that gay people love feminine things" I said "All of us know that rainbows, pink/purple, and ponies are things geared towards girls." They are marketing devices used to attract the attention of females.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

@Rainbow Mink - What is the purpose in making your posting space appear overly-feminine (in the sense that you have a female avatar, purple writing, and seem to main only feminine characters?) This is not a rhetorical question, or one meant to bash you, but seriously looking for an answer here.

Purple's always been my favorite color, and ever since i joined i've been using it as my font color. I have a female avatar because i like women, and this is a human version of the pony Rainbow Dash (see my name). And i main characters that are women because i have always played women in fighter games.

Just seems more fun to play fast sexy agile women, then ... whatever else.

 

[Sieguest]

So, to recap, you're right, but you're too busy to explain why. I thoroughly refuted every point you made, explained why my clarification was not semantics, etc., and you now have to argue with the points I made if you want to continue. That's how debates work.

Take some friendly advice, bro, and get out of the thread while you still have some dignity.

No and no.
Too busy to explain because most of the time I venture into the debate hall is during my lunch period and I spend most of that time eating my lunch.

"Throughly refuted"? Also no. If by "thoroughly refute" you mean "just insult him and say his post is dumb and hope he doesn't call me out on it," then I suppose you could say that. I'll edit this post later today as what do you know? I have to go back to school and learn stuff.

 

[kataklysm336]

Purple's always been my favorite color, and ever since i joined i've been using it as my font color. I have a female avatar because i like women, and this is a human version of the pony Rainbow Dash (see my name). And i main characters that are women because i have always played women in fighter games.

Just seems more fun to play fast sexy agile women, then ... whatever else.

Philosophically speaking these answers (as well as the way I posed my question) are very shallow, and provide no real insight. Essentially you're answer boils down to "because I like feminine things" or "I choose feminine things over masculine things". I suppose my real question here is why do you choose these things over traditionally masculine things? (i.e. why do you like them?)

What makes these objects more appealing? You must understand that all of these things would lead anyone to instantly think you were a female, why do you choose that over appearing masculine?


I'd like to point out that this isn't an attempt to call you homosexual, or to imply that you have undiscovered homosexual tendencies or qualities. I am merely trying to decide why one would be interested in appearing feminine?

"Throughly refuted"? Also no. If by "thoroughly refute" you mean "just insult him and say his post is dumb and hope he doesn't call me out on it," then I suppose you could say that. I'll edit this post later today as what do you know? I have to go back to school and learn stuff.

So, Battlecow is trolling a little, and is fancying up his posts. You can't take all those insults seriously. I'd assume that the flashy language is used as comedic effect.

Regardless, he did refute the claim here:

You are, in all sincerity, saying that the statement "many feminine men are homosexual" is untrue. Your support for this is that it's considered a stereotype, and therefore has no backing. This is after the very article which phootbag referenced to refute me acknowledged that gay men tend to be unusually feminine.

I would agree, many homosexual men are feminine. Why is this treated as something bad? Why is the immediate response to say that they aren't? Sure, there is a good portion that don't express feminine qualities, but there are also a good portion that do. I think there is a confusion between feminine qualities ensuring homosexuality and some homosexual people being feminine.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

Philosophically speaking these answers (as well as the way I posed my question) are very shallow, and provide no real insight. Essentially you're answer boils down to "because I like feminine things" or "I choose feminine things over masculine things". I suppose my real question here is why do you choose these things over traditionally masculine things? (i.e. why do you like them?)

What makes these objects more appealing? You must understand that all of these things would lead anyone to instantly think you were a female, why do you choose that over appearing masculine?


I'd like to point out that this isn't an attempt to call you homosexual, or to imply that you have undiscovered homosexual tendencies or qualities. I am merely trying to decide why one would be interested in appearing feminine?

No insult taken.
I guess i've always liked the color purple because its a very emotional color. I guess you could say my internet persona is very feminine, though if you ever met me in person you would see i'm not feminine whatsoever. When i was in high school, the majority of it was spent in a "goth/emo" stage and i would wear alot of black, and purple goes really well with black so it became more and more common for me to use that color. I believe it in the same concept as music, if you listen to song X over and over, eventually you're going to like that song.

I've always liked feminine things, ie powerpuff girls, lady gaga, vanessa carlton, birthday massacre. I guess i have always enjoyed feminine things. Immediately when i saw images of My Little Pony, i knew i was already a fan just because of the style of drawing and the colors used. It's strange to think about because 95% of my desktop wallpapers, are almost naked women. I'm not in any way or sort homosexual or bisexual. I am straight without a doubt. I'm not sure why i'm drawn to feminine things, but i am. I played Peach back in Melee, and i've always played jigglypuff.

I always say that i play jigglypuff because everyone says she's really bad, but i think she's really good. I believe this to be true, but i think subconsciously i started playing her because she IS a feminine character. I may just be attracted to feminine things because i'm attracted to females. As almost a hobby, i pick up girls alot (not to sound conceited, but as a supporting statement, thats one of the main things i enjoy doing when i go out). '

I guess, i don't particularly choose to be feminine OVER masculine, i just enjoy the online persona i guess.
It's really hard to explain because i just don't know. It may be related to my sexual nature, or just habit. Whenever i play ANY fighting games i always play the female, whether it's because i always have, or because i enjoy playing females. I will not play a female if she unnattractive, i always make sure to play the most attractive girl in a game. That may be related.

Though overall, i'm not sure. All of this was just me thinking out loud and writing it down so i didn't miss a single thought. Sorry if it seems almost lacking information and maybe some things were a bit unrelated, but it was basically a memory dump. My main hobbies include playing guitar (metal), smash, partying and uh, i guess just school (in which i'm a Music And Sound Technology Major). If you ever met me in person, you would be incredibly surprised that this is how i am on the internet since i look completely different than how you would picture me (5 facial piercings, beard, etc). I don't dress feminine. I'm happy you asked this, it's enlightening to myself as well. If you would like to gather any more information and attempt to break it down, i will look forward to your response. Note, that i don't take offense to things to easily, so i don't mind what you imply. As long as it's not offensive name calling. But if you keep it mature, as represented in your previous posts, i will be happy to respond back to you.

 

[Crooked Crow]

It's all subjective preference.

Why are we debating semantics? It's not possible.

 

[Sieguest]

So, Battlecow is trolling a little, and is fancying up his posts. You can't take all those insults seriously. I'd assume that the flashy language is used as comedic effect.

Regardless, he did refute the claim here:

You are, in all sincerity, saying that the statement "many feminine men are homosexual" is untrue. Your support for this is that it's considered a stereotype, and therefore has no backing. This is after the very article which phootbag referenced to refute me acknowledged that gay men tend to be unusually feminine.

After overlooking what I said here:

What you failed to point out is that these "studies" may be flawed due to the assumptions that are made in conducting them.

and here:

It excludes so many other different variables as to why a man may be more "feminine" compared to others, the biggest factor being all the variables involved in early childhood experiences. The things you call "girly" in the show is just what present day society has labeled as "girly". A rainbow is strictly an occurrence in science. Is the fact that it has a plethora of colors make it girly? Well how many different colors are in your house? If there is more than eight then you are officially feminine. The colors purple and pink are arbitrarily labeled as "girly".

I would agree, many homosexual men are feminine. Why is this treated as something bad? Why is the immediate response to say that they aren't? Sure, there is a good portion that don't express feminine qualities, but there are also a good portion that do. I think there is a confusion between feminine qualities ensuring homosexuality and some homosexual people being feminine.

It's not being treated as necessarily bad, but basing an argument on an unproven statement or associating a certain characteristic with a criteria so arbitrarily set is just setting an argument on a shaky foundation. The common association as to what a homosexual male is has been exemplified by such things as media coverage on events concerning gays (whether it be on a national scale or a local scale, even the scale of a school-wide newspaper) and people subsequently picking up on these characteristics from peers in their neighborhood. However as even you yourself have said, there are a good portion of gays that don't display feminine characteristics as well as there is a sizable portion of people who are straight that do display feminine characteristics. With that said, where are the outliers? We tend to take what media sources personify as the typical *insert term here* man, but how do we know that the majority of gay men aren't really all that feminine? The media can only give a "snapshot" of the demographic of any area. With that said, if all of the media exposure of gay males showed viewers men with deep voices, were very aggressive and liked colors such as navy blue and hunter green then this discussion would be discussed in a 180, point being that if you consider these things, the idea of most gay men being feminine doesn't hold that much water to be used as the base of any argument.

To be honest, my largest concern is with associating certain ideas such as color when determining one's masculinity or lack thereof.

 

[ph00tbag]

I would agree, many homosexual men are feminine. Why is this treated as something bad? Why is the immediate response to say that they aren't? Sure, there is a good portion that don't express feminine qualities, but there are also a good portion that do. I think there is a confusion between feminine qualities ensuring homosexuality and some homosexual people being feminine.

Except he is subsequently making a logical accident. The article references a study that suggests homosexual men tend to be more androgynous than heterosexual men (that is, more feminine but not less masculine). But this in no way shows that men who display feminine or androgynous attributes are gay. Nevertheless, that is exactly what Battlecow is arguing.

And that's what the argument against him is entirely about. It's not calling him a bigot simply because that's our hyper-PC knee-jerk reaction, it's saying that his logic is fallacious.

No one here disputes that My Little Pony has qualities perceived as feminine in modern western culture. Further, no one disputes that openly gay men tend to display more feminine qualities than straight men. What everyone disputes, and what Battlecow seems absolutely intent on clinging to is an illogical belief that these two points support a claim that men who watch My Little Pony are either gay or are pretending to be gay because they think it's funny.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. You seem to have spent three posts saying absolutely nothing of substance in the most disagreeable way possible. Can you state plainly what your position is?

 

[ballin4life]

Except he is subsequently making a logical accident. The article references a study that suggests homosexual men tend to be more androgynous than heterosexual men (that is, more feminine but not less masculine). But this in no way shows that men who display feminine or androgynous attributes are gay. Nevertheless, that is exactly what Battlecow is arguing.

And that's what the argument against him is entirely about. It's not calling him a bigot simply because that's our hyper-PC knee-jerk reaction, it's saying that his logic is fallacious.

This is incorrect. Let G = the event that a man is homosexual, and let F be the event that a man is feminine.

Bayes Theorem says:
P(G|F) = P(F|G)P(G)/P(F).

Increasing P(F|G) will increase P(G|F).

No one here disputes that My Little Pony has qualities perceived as feminine in modern western culture. Further, no one disputes that openly gay men tend to display more feminine qualities than straight men.

Well, BPC was ranting about how that's false earlier ...

 

[kataklysm336]

It excludes so many other different variables as to why a man may be more "feminine" compared to others, the biggest factor being all the variables involved in early childhood experiences. The things you call "girly" in the show is just what present day society has labeled as "girly". A rainbow is strictly an occurrence in science. Is the fact that it has a plethora of colors make it girly? Well how many different colors are in your house? If there is more than eight then you are officially feminine. The colors purple and pink are arbitrarily labeled as "girly".

I mostly agree with you on this point. Society does determine those things, but it isn't like "girly" is a bad thing. It's just a thing. Somethings are labeled "girly" because they ascribe to what we view as the ideal concept of the woman. Pink and purple don't make someone feminine but they represent femininity. Rainbows, and ponies are the same way. Rainbows are just occurrences in nature, but they are also extremely beautiful. Extreme beauty is a quality we associate with femininity. Ponies are a much smaller, cuter version of a horse, as compared to a large stallion, which is muscular (a masculine quality). Of course, having muscles doesn't make someone any more or less male or female, but it adds a sense of "masculine" or a lack of "feminine".

It's not being treated as necessarily bad, but basing an argument on an unproven statement or associating a certain characteristic with a criteria so arbitrarily set is just setting an argument on a shaky foundation. The common association as to what a homosexual male is has been exemplified by such things as media coverage on events concerning gays (whether it be on a national scale or a local scale, even the scale of a school-wide newspaper) and people subsequently picking up on these characteristics from peers in their neighborhood. However as even you yourself have said, there are a good portion of gays that don't display feminine characteristics as well as there is a sizable portion of people who are straight that do display feminine characteristics. With that said, where are the outliers? We tend to take what media sources personify as the typical *insert term here* man, but how do we know that the majority of gay men aren't really all that feminine? The media can only give a "snapshot" of the demographic of any area. With that said, if all of the media exposure of gay males showed viewers men with deep voices, were very aggressive and liked colors such as navy blue and hunter green then this discussion would be discussed in a 180, point being that if you consider these things, the idea of most gay men being feminine doesn't hold that much water to be used as the base of any argument.

To be honest, my largest concern is with associating certain ideas such as color when determining one's masculinity or lack thereof.

As others have said its just semantics. You can't get lost solely in the connotation of a word, because how you feel towards that subject influences how you react when the word is used. Really, the only claim I have seen Battlecow make is that many gay people are feminine, which is true. That doesn't define the gay community, but a lot of them are. I know plenty of gay people, and they all have many more feminine qualities than all of my straight friends. I don't particularly have a problem with it, but that's just the way it is.

Also, many gay men being feminine isn't the basis for the argument, it IS the argument.

 

[Battlecow]

Kataclysm and ballin' bein' reasonable, takin' all the fun out of my thread. Go away, guys. If you keep this up, my opponents' arguments will become thoughtful and measured, and then I'll have to go back to getting my jollies from prank-calling the Mormon hotline.

Yeah, BPC, the majority opinion, clearly, is that gay dudes *insert lots of qualifying language to make sure I'm not viewed as a bigot here* are generally more feminine. Why do you say that this is not the case? Again, I can only give you anecdotal proof and the proof of that one study that that one guy who had enough energy to google it found. Are you just being a super-liberal for ****s and giggles or do you actually believe what you say? I'm interested to see your facts.

Phoot, Ballin' ninj'd me. Again, common sense.

 

[ph00tbag]

This is incorrect. Let G = the event that a man is homosexual, and let F be the event that a man is feminine.

Bayes Theorem says:
P(G|F) = P(F|G)P(G)/P(F).

Increasing P(F|G) will increase P(G|F).

Except Battlecow isn't arguing for alternative denial. He's arguing for conjunction.

 

[ballin4life]

If Gay men are more likely to be feminine, then feminine men are more likely to be gay. This is true, although it says NOTHING about the actual probabilities involved. It's possible that very few feminine men actually are gay, even if gay men are very likely to be feminine. But the more likely gay men are to be feminine, the more likely feminine men are to be gay - increasing one increases the other.

 

[ph00tbag]

If Gay men are more likely to be feminine, then feminine men are more likely to be gay. This is true, although it says NOTHING about the actual probabilities involved. It's possible that very few feminine men actually are gay, even if gay men are very likely to be feminine. But the more likely gay men are to be feminine, the more likely feminine men are to be gay - increasing one increases the other.

That's all well and good. But it's not what Battlecow is arguing.

 

[Battlecow]

What am I arguing then?

 

[ph00tbag]

Are you saying you don't even read your own posts?

 

[Battlecow]

OK, you obviously have nothing to say. I do read my posts. Thoroughly. That's why I was confused when you claimed that I was indulging in logical fallacies. Because I haven't done that. Please point out where I have done that (as I've asked you to do a number of times now) or else shush.