Alma
Materia Dealer
Look at me still talking when there's science to do!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Alma on Oct 30, 2007 1:15:38 GMT
While I too am a proud fanatic of Zack/Cloud; I also adore Zack/Aerith and Cloud/Tifa. I'm also okay with Cloud/Aerith and Zack/Tifa... not to mention Tifa/Aerith... As far as I'm concerned it is literally one big happy love square.... Yay! Love for everyone!! I like all the pairings, too. Even if I'm mainly a Cloti kinda girl, I'm just happy as long as everyone has someone. I get sick of reading those angsty Tifa-wishing-for-Cloud's-attention fics. Though I'm guilty of writing one or two, myself! Oh yeah, new commandment: Tifa will not kill herself because Cloud loves Aerith/ran away. O-o
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Oct 30, 2007 1:20:41 GMT
Or, to rephrase that: -Barret =/= Mr T. .....Unless it's a parody. ^_____^ ~Tasha
|
|
|
Post by Sylla on Oct 30, 2007 20:19:24 GMT
|
|
Ink
SOLDIER First Class
Jashin's going to smite your arse. Smite! SMITE, I say!
Posts: 1,681
|
Post by Ink on Oct 30, 2007 21:35:45 GMT
Oh God. Sylla, when I read that I laughed till I cried (part of the crying-bit was because, well, it's so true it's sad. That's how countless fanfics are). Just lovely.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Oct 31, 2007 0:18:54 GMT
Oh my God. That was hilarious.
~Tasha
|
|
|
Post by theskycalamity on Oct 31, 2007 1:15:48 GMT
Random: I know this was posted god knows how long ago. But... alas, I feel rather hurt. This goes out to those who think the remnant pairings are "wrong". ---
I absolutely ADORE the remnant pairings. First of all, you must understand that they have different ideas about society/culture than the rest of the planet. It isn't about love (in my personal opinion), it's about feeling good. Simply put.
Don’t even begin to give me the lecture about children not being quite right/unable to be born if the parents are closely enough related. The act is still natural. Homosexuality doesn’t exactly do wonders for the human species as a whole, but it is still natural as well. Animals do it all the time. They have no concept of it being right or wrong. It is only wrong to us because our society has deemed it so.
Also, they use the term brother quite loosely. They called the children brothers and sisters and we obviously know they are not exactly related.
On another note, they have the same exact DNA. Yep, they are one person. If anything it's more like masturbation.
So, it's not about INCEST. Don't say ew to the pairing simply because you cannot get over your own cultural views. I don't put down anyone else's pairing (no matter how far fetched, ANYTHING can be worked out if written well). I don't care much for Cloud, Aeris, Tifa, Cid or really anyone else in the 'good guy' group. In fact, I see it nearly impossible for Cloud to sleep with anyone. But that's just MY idea, and I am fully willing to accept that someone else sees it differently. Yet, I am not about to be grossed out about it and tell claim that it is wrong.
I thought I should clear that up.
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 31, 2007 2:35:47 GMT
Actually, on a related note, societies haven't always deemed homosexuality squeckish. Well, at least in the 'ancient' world back in the good ol' days of Athens & Sparta & Macedonia and all that. Before the Romans. Even in the Romans' day, for the upper classes, homosexuality was all right, to an extent. The preference for heterosexuality in part comes from the lower/middle classes, whose members wouldn't have time and money for numerous relations and so would pick the opposite sex so they could propagate the population. As an interesting history lesson... homosexuality wasn't simply reserved for nobles with leisure time & money, either. For a brief time, the Greek city state of Thebes was the hegemon of Greece when they defeated Sparta. Now, the Thebans had a special cavalry force of 300 men called the Sacred Band. This band was made up of 150 homosexual couples, and they were an elite strike force. They were the best. Of course, shortly after Thebes, under Epimondas' crafty generalship, beat Sparta, they only had the hegemony for a little while before the Macedonians, under Philip II, pwned them. BUT, in that battle of the Macedonians vs. Thebans ( Battle of Chaeronea, I think...), the Sacred Band refused to surrender, and they were killed to the last man and never ever reformed. Isn't that kind of cool, though? AND I'M PRETENDING THIS WAS ON TOPIC, OK? military history class has to be good for something.
|
|
|
Post by allocin on Oct 31, 2007 11:27:50 GMT
I had to read for literary criticism class a bunch of essays on kinship, which basically said that the preference for heterosexuality outside of family members came largely from the need to attain status and power, to grow the clan as much as possible, and to maintain dominance over other clans without war. That's really simplified, but basically, yes. It came from anthropological studies of remote tribes in the deepest depths of Indonesian rainforest, where some tribes believed that boys were born too female (due to growing in the womb) and had to ingest semen in order to become men.
I don't really care much for Remnant!love, for the record, but then I don't really care much for sex at all in FFVII.
~Ally~
|
|
|
Post by piedflycatcher on Oct 31, 2007 14:13:51 GMT
First of all, you must understand that they have different ideas about society/culture than the rest of the planet. You're welcome to your preferences, Sky, but I don't see what basis you have for this comment. Myself, I wish there was more genfic. Do people really have to be getting it on all the time?
|
|
|
Post by Sylla on Oct 31, 2007 18:18:42 GMT
Don’t even begin to give me the lecture about children not being quite right/unable to be born if the parents are closely enough related. Well, that's kind of a non-issue, isn't it? Until the borders of m-preg are pushed... and I don't even wanna go there. =P The act is still natural. Well, hurricanes are natural, too. Not that I'm likening Remnant pairings to hurricanes, just that it's a weak basis for an argument. On another note, they have the same exact DNA. Yep, they are one person. If anything it's more like masturbation. Hm... that could actually be a good subject for debate. Are the remnants really one person? In this case I'd say it's the personality that counts more (especially in a world like Gaia, where gene experimentation runs amok)- but... ioknow. Don't say ew to the pairing simply because you cannot get over your own cultural views. Hon, if people have an aversion to something, because of cultural reasons or anything else, you can't exactly say to them 'no, don't find this disgusting'. It's like saying to me, "Don't say 'ew' to spiders just cause you can't get over your phobia." Not gonna happen. It's perfectly fine of you like Remnant pairings, but a lot of other people find them repulsive, not to put too fine a point on things.
|
|
|
Post by theskycalamity on Oct 31, 2007 20:22:21 GMT
I don't think so. We're talking about sexuality. If someone is saying incest (if that is what we are going to call it) is unnatural, then they are wrong. Because it's no more natural or unnatural than homosexuality. It's fine is someone wants to consider something natural wrong, but that does not get rid of the fact that it is, indeed, natural.
Well, we know that they aren't "clones" in the sense that they grew up in a lab. It's in the Reunion Files (although not EVERYTHING in there is correct. Most of it is and it is there has been nothing so far to contradict this particular subject). They are parts of Sephiroth, fractions of him if you will. BUT, put together they are still Sephiroth. I imagine it's much like taking the same person and having them grow up in a totally different environment. You get different traits. However, Sephiroth had all three (Willpower/Allure/Strength). If you think about it so do we. Ever see the movie Multiplicity?
I fully believe that we are in control of our actions (perhaps not entirely our beliefs, those are harder to change). For example, I cannot support people who stand out on the streets and tell people with HIV/AIDS that they are going to go to hell and that they deserve it and god gave it to them etc. BUT, I won't tell them they are WRONG (even if I personally think so). I won't think they are disgusting or anything else. At that point it doesn't really make me any better than them.
What I am trying to say is we all have an emotional response to the things we encounter. I don't think it is right of people (even if it does happen, it doesn't mean it should) to INAPPROPRIATELY express their feelings to another. There is: "I don't like that pairing. It doesn't suit me" or "OMG, THAT'S GROSS AND IMMORAL!"
See the difference?
Of course, if we want to take this to an extreme we could say I am wrong by thinking other people should act this way. But then it's wrong to think I am being wrong... er, yeah. Don't get me started. Yay paradoxes.
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 31, 2007 21:30:34 GMT
I don't think so. We're talking about sexuality. If someone is saying incest (if that is what we are going to call it) is unnatural, then they are wrong. Because it's no more natural or unnatural than homosexuality. It's fine is someone wants to consider something natural wrong, but that does not get rid of the fact that it is, indeed, natural. Actually... That depends on what you define as natural. For example, a human could have sex with a dolphin. Is that natural? Well... what you seem to be saying is that because sex itself is a natural act, having sex with a dolphin would be a perfectly natural act for that human and for that dolphin. However, most people think of 'natural sex' as being the sex most of the animal (and technically plant, if you're counting simply the exchange of male and female sex cells - sperm and eggs for animals, pollen and eggs for plants) kingdom participates in on a regular basis to propagate the species. That is, heterosexual, same-species, non-incestual sex. Granted, many animal species, when there is a shortage of viable mates, will engage in incest to further the species. However, those last four words are key: "To further the species." For example... Female komodo dragons as well as female turkeys and others are capable of laying viable eggs containing male young without mating, if there are no males around to mate with. Then, when those young hatch, the mothers will mate with their sons in order to then have both male /and/ female progeny and thus continue the species the ordinary way. Technically, you can argue that's natural, because it occurs without outside interference. But then again, you can argue that it isn't natural, because under ordinary circumstances, the mother would not mate with her son. It is only because of the stress of the environment - that is, the lack of males to mate with for whatever reason - that the lizards/birds/whatever are engaging in incestual relations. You can offer a similar example with cannibalism. Humans have been known to engage in cannibalism if they are stranded in groups, and there is a major food shortage. Does that make it natural…? To say that someone is wrong for calling that act unnatural is no more correct that to say someone is wrong for calling it natural. They are both different opinions on the same subject. The same goes for homosexuality. It can easily be argued both ways – whether it’s unnatural or not. As a corollary, there’s also a debate over what defines incest. In the USA, I believe it’s second cousins or closer by blood, but I could be wrong. Anyway… a second corollary, even if in a culture, a certain act is performed routinely or occasionally, that doesn’t mean it is natural. Similarly, if a certain act is performed by one or more species, that doesn’t make it natural for other species, even if those other species are closely related. But how do you define inappropriate? Is being completely honest about your opinions inappropriate? Or is it simply tactless? Or, are those one and the same? Moreover, which makes clearer someone’s opinion? The person declaring that he or she finds incest to be gross and immoral or the person simply saying that he or she doesn’t like this particular instance of incest? Is expressing his or her emotional response to the idea of an incestual or homosexual or whatever pairing really so terrible? And this is where the debate over relative truth or absolute truth comes into play. ;P That could go on forever. Rofl. We debated this in class once... the whether thinking someone else was wrong was wrong... etc.
|
|
|
Post by theskycalamity on Nov 1, 2007 0:01:47 GMT
You know, I would take the time to give you a lengthy reply. But I feel I've already made my points. Anything you've pointed out I've already given an answer for...
Read it again if you have to... <.<
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Nov 1, 2007 0:48:53 GMT
I actually do have a question for you that you haven't answered as of yet and can't possibly consider already answered (I disagree that you answered all my points, but... whatever; it doesn't matter in the long run). I'm curious.
Given that sex is natural, and that seems to be what you base whether or not a sexual act is natural on...would you consider pedophilia natural?
I'm just wondering if you extend that definition to all things, or if you have a line. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by theskycalamity on Nov 1, 2007 2:49:10 GMT
Yep. It's natural. The only ones who gave us the idea that age mattered is culture, mostly. Even then back in the old days a 30 year old man could marry a 12 year old and society thought nothing of it. You don't see animals waiting until a certain age AFTER they have the ability to give birth to commit sexual acts. In other words, old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.
|
|