• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Gay and Bisexual relationship thread |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
umop_3pisdn said:
Yeah, I find that I tend to get along with Scorpios as well so I know what you mean. I definitely have the Piscean tendency to be somewhat pliant and to put others first, but at the same time intimacy freaks me out and I'm only really skilled at or willing to be 'friendly' with people. I also have an Aries ascendant so my personality is kind of all over the place, and I find that I don't really get along with anyone that well because these conflicts in temperament (passive/emotional-cerebral/aloof-spontaneous/warlike) introduce too much weird volatility :P
Click to expand...
Yes, I can mold a Pisces in whichever way I choose, and so can the other more domineering signs. Intimacy freaks you out hmm? What is your moon and your venus? I can see the Aries/Pisces combo being a little confusing for people. My ascendant is the least passionate sign (Aquarius), and my sun is the most passionate. I think it throws people off completely.


Alcoori said:
Why would there be any biological effect depending on tw season you're born? Lol.
Seriously people basing themselves on astrological signs to know if they're gonna get along with others or to find reasons why is a tad sad. Tere's no other reason that these people being awesome/dicks.
Click to expand...
There are many factors that form a person's personality. As soon as I'm done stating the obvious, I'll move onto my next sentence. I haven't really looked too much into the "science" (lol) of Astrology. I just find it interesting to at least be aware of.

Obsessed said:
Maybe it is confirmation bias on my part, but gay men tend to believe in psuedoscientific bullshit like astrology far more than straight men.

Also given how vague horoscopes are I'm not surprised you find it rings true.
Click to expand...
It's true. I know not to speak too much about Astrology around straight men. They look at me with a glazed-over, displeased look in their eyes. I've learned.

Well... I've looked into my birth chart, and it gets pretty specific. It goes way beyond your sun sign into a complex web of planets, houses, and their aspects.

umop_3pisdn said:
Lol, who said anything about it being scientific? It's about as 'scientific' as Jung's personality theory or MBTI, meaning likely purely theoretical or mystical bullshit but still not without some use. That's why I follow Sidereal astrology :P Tropical astrology has me as an Aries which makes no fucking sense to me. The archetypes used in astrology are actually a lot more specific than the Forer effect would suggest, which only someone lacking in self-knowledge would identify with. I don't really think you can claim to know how well people understand themselves from a position of total ignorance as to their character, at least in my case and using the people I know as an average I tend to have a more finely cultivated intrapersonal understanding than most people. And the people I know are likely skewed well above average themselves. Because existing systems may presumably have experienced the benefits of trial and error? :P I agree with that in terms of belief systems a la Blake (“I must create my own system, or be enslav'd by another man's") but I don't think hardly anyone really takes astrology that seriously, it's just an archetypal system intended to address personality.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I didn't know about this "Sidereal" astrology. Apparently, I'd be a Libra. And it says here that Libras are diplomatic, graceful, and peaceful. OMG GUISE THAT'S SO ME.

Yeah, for most, it's just fun to think about.
 
SpiffyG said:
Yes, I can mold a Pisces in whichever way I choose, and so can the other more domineering signs. Intimacy freaks you out hmm? What is your moon and your venus? I can see the Aries/Pisces combo being a little confusing for people. My ascendant is the least passionate sign (Aquarius), and my sun is the most passionate. I think it throws people off completely.
Click to expand...

Yeah I usually just go along with other people's wishes because I'm usually content to be lead around if it makes other people happier since I'm generally not that opinionated on a lot of things, so it means less to me and I don't really have the motive to try and get 'my way' since I'm often not even sure what that is in a given context.

Hahaha, that's actually pretty cool. IME a discordant personality tends to make other people more interested, and you less interested in them, because no one really wants to be a 'puzzle' because it's kind of exhausting.

My moon is in Aquarius and my Venus is in Taurus.
 
umop_3pisdn said:
Because existing systems may presumably have experienced the benefits of trial and error? :P I agree with that in terms of belief systems a la Blake (“I must create my own system, or be enslav'd by another man's") but I don't think hardly anyone really takes astrology that seriously, it's just an archetypal system intended to address personality.
Click to expand...
Do pseudoscientific systems really benefit from trial and error, though? Astrology strikes me as something that sticks because of its emotive/personal angle, it hits on a few vague predictions and the mind shapes what remains into what the reader wants to see. It has but to sell that first foot of toilet paper.
 
umop_3pisdn said:
Lol, who said anything about it being scientific? It's about as 'scientific' as Jung's personality theory or MBTI, meaning likely purely theoretical or mystical bullshit but still not without some use.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the term psuedoscience means?

And enlighten me, what use does it have?

I don't think I can be faulted for believing astrology is bullshit when astrology posits that balls of gas/rock/liquid billions of miles away from the planet affect individual people's daily interactions. There's not a single shred of credible evidence supporting that claim.


umop_3pisdn said:
The archetypes used in astrology are actually a lot more specific than the Forer effect would suggest, which only someone lacking in self-knowledge would identify with.
Click to expand...

Ah a nice little way to discredit the studies done on the Forer effect. All the participants were just "lacking in self knowledge."
 
The Abominable Snowman said:
oh... they are. It's weird because I added them right after I saw the flirty tweets and they followed me back. Only thing on my mind:

When-People-Flirt-With-Someone-You-Love_e3951acd93d9dfd23b37b622fadc6e8f.jpg
Click to expand...

Are you me?!

I followed at least three people for that very reason. >.>
 
Obsessed said:
Do you know what the term psuedoscience means?

And enlighten me, what use does it have?

I don't think I can be faulted for believing astrology is bullshit when astrology posits that balls of gas/rock/liquid billions of miles away from the planet affect individual people's daily interactions. There's not a single shred of credible evidence supporting that claim.
Click to expand...
You can't; but you can be for being kind of an ass about it. Who cares if they believe in it? Just let them have their fun. Dissenting opinions don't always have to be known. Kind of like letting people know they have ugly babies.

How is it any different than being into BDSM? Or waterworks? Or being a furry? Those aren't any better or worse in my eyes. Basically, have some respect and don't call it bullshit if it's something they like. No point in alienating fellow homos.
 
Hi Gay Gaf. I have a question for you guys. I met someone a couple of months ago and we have been texting a lot (probably more than 2000 texts a month) and at night till 1-2am. I developed a major crush on the guy but he's in a relationship. I had to end the texting last night for my own sanity, though he says he never saw the texting as anything more than a textaholic wanting to talk to someone interesting. Is that normal? Or am I reading too much into it?
 
dragonlife said:
You can't; but you can be for being kind of an ass about it. Who cares if they believe in it? Just let them have their fun. Dissenting opinions don't always have to be known. Kind of like letting people know they have ugly babies.

How is it any different than being into BDSM? Or waterworks? Or being a furry? Those aren't any better or worse in my eyes. Basically, have some respect and don't call it bullshit if it's something they like. No point in alienating fellow homos.
Click to expand...

I don't believe people from those groups make any claims about the workings of the universe. I've yet to see a person into BDSM claim that whipping during sex boosts the immune system (for example). I also can distinguish between "Oh my baby is sooooo cute" and "insert the numerous claims astrologists make here."

And I feel it is perfectly fine to criticize the beliefs of others if they are open about those beliefs.


ZephyrFate said:
ITT: Pointless astrology bashing?
Click to expand...

ITT: Pointless posting on a forum dedicated to a pointless hobby.
 
AXavierB said:
Are you me?!

I followed at least three people for that very reason. >.>
Click to expand...

*High Five*

I am bottling myself up on the inside to resist asking my partner who the eff they are. Plus it would sound stalker-ish, controlling, and lame;

"WHO THE HELL WERE YOU TWEETING AT 4 IN THE MORNING? YOU ON TWITTER AFTER DARK? "

Especially that one that had a D&B in their profile pic.
 
I think the only thing I've liked from the gay pimp was Soccer Practice. Cazwell's Ice Cream video is better than anything he's done, though.
 
Obsessed said:
Do you know what the term psuedoscience means?
Click to expand...

Do you? No one here is presenting astrology as science, we aren't seriously discussing something like phrenology but rather taking into account that it's simply an archetypal system. Archetypes are essentially a form of mythology. But like mythology working within the confines of the belief system presented isn't necessarily fruitless.

And enlighten me, what use does it have?
Click to expand...

As I said already, any system that can result in personal insight is valuable regardless of if the system itself is valid or not. It's simple pragmatism.

I don't think I can be faulted for believing astrology is bullshit when astrology posits that balls of gas/rock/liquid billions of miles away from the planet affect individual people's daily interactions. There's not a single shred of credible evidence supporting that claim.
Click to expand...

How many times have I stated that astrology is likely bullshit? Why is it that the skeptics often take this subject more seriously than many of the people who entertain its premises? It's ridiculous, this isn't even a matter of personal integrity, diverging from thought based on rationality isn't dangerous when one fully recognizes it as such, and people everywhere do it all the time with likely less self-consciousness, just perhaps not on this particular subject. This is comparatively rather safe when one accepts it as simply a lens that one can adopt and discard whenever one wishes. I can accept that this is perhaps a pet peeve of yours but it seems like you're giving it more importance than it deserves.

I'm not faulting your skepticism I'm faulting you for essentially assuming knowledge on other people's positions when you clearly don't have it. I'm not claiming that this is something that you should attempt to understand, but it makes your haughtiness a little more ridiculous imo.

And that's not the explicit claim being made, that's a leap in reasoning made to explain the more relevant claim, that people born around similar times or within similar contexts tend to exhibit similar traits. I'm not saying that it's true but as far as archetypal systems go it has a lot of thought invested in it and I'm not prepared to dismiss all of that thought just because I have a problem with the premise.

Ah a nice little way to discredit the studies done on the Forer effect. All the participants were just "lacking in self knowledge."
Click to expand...

The example presented by the Forer effect is easy to hand wave in the way that it is commonly used to address astrology, when you read the result he gave for his test I don't know how anyone could see it as anything but obviously attempting to apply to everyone. I'm not dismissing the Forer effect itself but rather direct comparisons of the results he gave to something like astrological personality profiles. One does actually have some degree of specificity.
 
Obsessed said:
I don't believe people from those groups make any claims about the workings of the universe. I've yet to see a person into BDSM claim that whipping during sex boosts the immune system (for example). I also can distinguish between "Oh my baby is sooooo cute" and "insert the numerous claims astrologists make here."

And I feel it is perfectly fine to criticize the beliefs of others if they are open about those beliefs.




ITT: Pointless posting on a forum dedicated to a pointless hobby.
Click to expand...
I never said they claimed anything. I was just saying (basically), that it's pretty damn rude to call things someone likes "bullshit." That's why I brought up what I did, but I take it you don't like seeing simple correlations if you just purposely misunderstand or misconstrue them to make a counter point. But I'm just making assumptions here.

And, yes, I agree you can criticize whatever you want. But you're acting pretty arrogant. I don't know if that's how you like to come across, though. If it is, I'll just stop now and let you go on.

Like I said earlier, I just don't want anyone here feeling alienated. That's pretty much it. You can have a debate and still be a good sport. But maybe that's just me.
 
Botolf said:
Do pseudoscientific systems really benefit from trial and error, though? Astrology strikes me as something that sticks because of its emotive/personal angle, it hits on a few vague predictions and the mind shapes what remains into what the reader wants to see. It has but to sell that first foot of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

I think pretty much everything benefits from trial and error, people hold on to what 'works' even if the perception that it 'works' is itself an illusion.

Eh, I can see that somewhat, but on the other hand I'm not really sure :P There is admittedly quite a bit of vagueness but there's quite a bit of specificity as well. Growing up I always thought I was an Aries and while some things fit, it lacked verisimilitude. I only began to take an interest in it once I realized that the sidereal pisces thing fit me better. So I think that some signs do fit better than others. Like I could never consider myself a Capricorn. Obviously it's impossible for me to imagine how I would perceive something if I were totally naive, but I think even trying to identify with it would present too much disquiet because I would know on a felt level that it's not really a good fit.

People are incredibly complex, that's often why I tend to hate personality assessments because it assumes a kind of fixity of traits that ime hardly exists, so yes any number of statements will seem to fit at one time or another, but I think you can kind of make generalizations on it and I don't think astrology is the worst system.

Although I've mostly lost interest in it, the only reason I'm engaging in this debate is due to the assumption that anyone maintaining mystical-thinking is somehow totally deluded or something. It's just too simple of a stereotype to be unilaterally true. There is often an element of that but ime skillful mystical-thinking just requires a particular type of finesse. It's just trying on different perspectives without the necessity that they be absolutely true.
 
dragonlife said:
I never said they claimed anything. I was just saying (basically), that it's pretty damn rude to call things someone likes "bullshit."
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm weird. I don't find it rude at all. Then again, we are on a video game forum and it is common for gamers to call certain games terrible even if other people like them.


umop_3pisdn said:
The example presented by the Forer effect is easy to hand wave in the way that it is commonly used to address astrology, when you read the result he gave for his test I don't know how anyone could see it as anything but obviously attempting to apply to everyone. I'm not dismissing the Forer effect itself but rather direct comparisons of the results he gave to something like astrological personality profiles. One does actually have some degree of specificity.
Click to expand...

Forer used an actual horoscope from an old newspaper. He didn't specifically craft it to be vague. I guess you could argue he picked the vaguest horoscope he could find.
 
Obsessed said:
Maybe I'm weird. I don't find it rude at all. Then again, we are on a video game forum and it is common for gamers to call certain games terrible even if other people like them.
Click to expand...
I also called astrology 'a load of shit' so, apologies to anyone if I came off as rude too. I would, however, immediately dump someone if they were a firm believer in it and made life decisions based off it :P
 
Obsessed said:
Maybe I'm weird. I don't find it rude at all. Then again, we are on a video game forum and it is common for gamers to call certain games terrible even if other people like them.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm weird, too. But games are just games :P The things I'm referring to are a bit more personal than games. I don't like talking about a subject for too long, so I'll just stop with this now. You guys have fun <3

I call some games terrible all the time. Like Half-Life 2
Just kidding, Bo. Just wanted to spike your blood pressure for a sec. I'm gonna reinstall it later tonight to play :D

julls said:
I would, however, immediately dump someone if they were a firm believer in it and made life decisions based off it :P
Click to expand...
Oh, I probably would, too. Nothing wrong with a friendship!
 
Obsessed said:
Forer used an actual horoscope from an old newspaper. He didn't specifically craft it to be vague. I guess you could argue he picked the vaguest horoscope he could find.
Click to expand...

Horoscopes are incredibly vague, though, even people who believe in astrology don't believe in newspaper horoscopes.
 
You had damned better, son. City 17 needs a homo hero. Install Obsidian Conflict and we can coop this ish with Scarlet!

umop_3pisdn said:
I think pretty much everything benefits from trial and error, people hold on to what 'works' even if the perception that it 'works' is itself an illusion.
Click to expand...
Everything can benefit from trial and error, provided such systems are evaluated earnestly and revised responsibly. I'm very much doubtful that most people familiar with astrology are as grounded about it as you are (though I'd like to be optimistic).

Eh, I can see that somewhat, but on the other hand I'm not really sure :P There is admittedly quite a bit of vagueness but there's quite a bit of specificity as well. Growing up I always thought I was an Aries and while some things fit, it lacked verisimilitude. I only began to take an interest in it once I realized that the sidereal pisces thing fit me better. So I think that some signs do fit better than others. Like I could never consider myself a Capricorn. Obviously it's impossible for me to imagine how I would perceive something if I were totally naive, but I think even trying to identify with it would present too much disquiet because I would know on a felt level that it's not really a good fit.

People are incredibly complex, that's often why I tend to hate personality assessments because it assumes a kind of fixity of traits that ime hardly exists, so yes any number of statements will seem to fit at one time or another, but I think you can kind of make generalizations on it and I don't think astrology is the worst system.

Although I've mostly lost interest in it, the only reason I'm engaging in this debate is due to the assumption that anyone maintaining mystical-thinking is somehow totally deluded or something. It's just too simple of a stereotype to be unilaterally true. There is often an element of that but ime skillful mystical-thinking just requires a particular type of finesse. It's just trying on different perspectives without the necessity that they be absolutely true.
Click to expand...
In a vaguely similar way, I grew up feeling that the "peacemaker" mould (the Biblical sort) fit me very well, I ascribed a higher plan and purpose to that aspect of my character with full seriousness. In hindsight it might be simply understood as reinforcement and justification of a simple personality trait (though in this case it really needed none). Had some other temperament become eminent, I could and would have drawn upon some other form of scriptural backing and inspiration. The trusting nature of Samson? The musicality of David? The fear and boldness of Esther? The hesitance of Moses? These certainly felt more genuinely significant than others, but that's as much a result of time and place as it is of literary and personal significance. So even though I do admit that these archetypes can and do become personally resonant, that can hardly be attributed to a mystic link or truth (not that you've implied anything like that). The thread of our humanity runs through everything, mythic or otherwise, so it's perfectly natural that we see pieces of each other and ourselves reflected in these works.
 
If I found out a guy I was dating humoured astrology, that's a deal breaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Misplaced Thread Titles
|OT| Opinion Community 
19
565
jshackles replied
How long did you first relationship last?
2
64
733
John Marston replied
Joe Rogan, he gay
News Spoilers 
25
539
Toots replied
Movies You’ve Watched Lately | OT | - 2026
|OT| Social 
20
85
Casisalive replied
If you are reading this you’re gay! LMAO!!!
Live  2 3
145
2K
Sticks replied
Top Bottom