2010-12-19, 04:05 AM
Eosian Wrote:Which brings us full circle to Fiel's father - The flaw in that implication is it assumes a causal link between unrelated details. The fact they were more protective has no implications without knowing why they were more protective and how it applies in other situations.
Were the soldiers protective of the females because they were attracted to them, or because they're from a culture that believes women need protecting?
In the latter, and more likely scenario, sexuality is irrelevant. A gay man is just as likely to try protecting a female as a straight man is if they both believe females need looking after.
Humans are wired to be protective of who they view as weaker. If anything there would be more risk of the straight men trying to protect the openly gay men than the gay men trying to protect the straight men they thought were cute
Which is exactly what I was trying to say, and then you called me ignorant...