I encountered someone saying, "I have no problems with a person's sexual orientation and choice, I have a problem with anyone being openly sexual or flaunting their sexuality in front of me regardless of their choice of orientation."

I am a card carrying atheist. I was raised in one of the worst fundamental christian extremist groups and now live in near isolation from abandoning it nearly 10 years ago. All sexuality was bottled in my life and surroundings. This is still my comfort zone. A part of me wants to hold on to a similar ethos as the person I mentioned above, but I feel like I'm not very confident it is the right inner philosophical balance either.

I'm partially disabled now, so this is almost completely hypothetical. I am honestly looking to grow in my understanding of personal space and inner morality as it relates to others. Someone enlighten me please. Where does this go, what does it mean to you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Scrumpf_Dabogy@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm sorry if I explained it poorly. I tend to ramble.

If you are uncomfortable with all forms of PDA, thats valid. The source of your discomfort is the act. Not who's doing it. And it would be a reasonable discomfort to accomadate.

If your discomfort was because of who is doing the act, then thats just prejudice. If the only accommodation that would work to comfort someone is harmful to others, then they need to look inward for a solution.

The point I kind of forgot I was making halfway through is that, while discomfort is valid and should be accommodated in society, discomfort is very subjective. Not everyone can explain their own discomfort accurately, and those that can might lie about it instead. So we have to be careful and try to recognize the difference between, "Your behavior makes me uncomfortable," and , "Your existence makes me uncomfortable."