Serious LGBT Discussion

Thoughts as a monogamic bisexual, I despise the thought of being grouped into a tribe. The notion of 'LGBT' as a sort of collective is a inherently political thing, it is very good for gathering votes, but I find it unironically dehumanising to be reduced into some sort of nebulous label.
I see myself as my own thing, and I don't care what trends go on within the 'community' because for me it is completely artificial and only sustained thanks to the media and ingroup mentality of some people.
This is just my honest opinion with zero filters, call it what you will, hubris, arrogance, or whatever you want, I'm just very apathetic to this sorta thing. Similarly, if I was hypothetically a woman, I would dislike being in the group of 'women' in that I must care about 'woman's issues'. There are no woman's issues, there are people's issues, it is political divide and conquer. Does it mean I can't empathise with the plight of gays in Russia? No, it doesn't, I care. The other thing that irks me is the fact whenever someone comes out, the media obsesses over it like it is some fetish, if I was famous, I'd be honestly very reluctant to come out in the knowledge the media would obsess over it like that. In a ideal world it shouldn't be even newsworthy, it should be the equivalent of 'what is your favourite colour?'
In essence, I do not rely on belonging to a tribe to know myself.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Isaac Clarke, Jack Haywood, adorable bitch and 12 others
RedRightHand said:
Thoughts as a monogamic bisexual, I despise the thought of being grouped into a tribe. The notion of 'LGBT' as a sort of collective is a inherently political thing, it is very good for gathering votes, but I find it unironically dehumanising to be reduced into some sort of nebulous label.
I see myself as my own thing, and I don't care what trends go on within the 'community' because for me it is completely artificial and only sustained thanks to the media and ingroup mentality of some people.
This is just my honest opinion with zero filters, call it what you will, hubris, arrogance, or whatever you want, I'm just very apathetic to this sorta thing. Similarly, if I was hypothetically a woman, I would dislike being in the group of 'women' in that I must care about 'woman's issues'. There are no woman's issues, there are people's issues, it is political divide and conquer. Does it mean I can't empathise with the plight of gays in Russia? No, it doesn't, I care. The other thing that irks me is the fact whenever someone comes out, the media obsesses over it like it is some fetish, if I was famous, I'd be honestly very reluctant to come out in the knowledge the media would obsess over it like that. In a ideal world it shouldn't be even newsworthy, it should be the equivalent of 'what is your favourite colour?'
In essence, I do not rely on belonging to a tribe to know myself.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle.

However, the reason that such tribalism exists springs from common interest. In a perfect world such things would not be necessary, but we do not live in a perfect world.

The LGBT has done a great deal when it comes to breaking down old barriers over the last half-century, and many people in those communities deserve full credit for the outreach that they did, just as the greater community deserves credit for the acceptance that has been given. Those weren't all small changes made on the part of the many, and the goodwill that the many extended did not spring ex-nihilo.

But now some of the LGBT community have gone absolutely batshit and the media seems intent to give those assholes bullhorns. I'm glad their noise levels seem to be dimming because the sheer odiousness of some of them is liable to reinforce certain other people's justifications to hate us, while potentially driving away those who would otherwise simply feel indifferent or even support us. I hate when the modern yaktivists start spinning their heads and speaking in tongues because some guy on Tindr says "Not in to trans or other guys. Sorry".

It's insanely unreasonable! With them it's not about outreach, it's about control.

Aside from the societal changes, there is also the matter of being able to connect with other people looking for same sex relationships. Walking into the average watering hole and hitting on strangers gets really risky when there's no way to tell if they're in to other guys. Big ol' rainbow flag outside kind of acts as a silent screening process in that regard, as it tells everyone what to more or less expect inside.

Over the last 20 years in particular, I have watched society change so much for the better in regards to acceptance of us, and I hate seeing the damned grievance crowd shit all over the opportunities that were won for them, but I still remember why people originally formed these groups.

In the end, it was to stop feeling as if we were alone.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: adorable bitch, Cool kitties club, toilet_rainbow and 8 others
What the hell do people mean by "LGBT community" anyway, I feel like it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you include in that ?

Your local bar/nightlife scene, gay cycling club and orgy organiser ? those hardly have any agenda.
Political organisations / activist groups ? I don't know about the US maybe it's different over there but in Europe it makes ZERO sense to consider LGBT people as a monolithic block, there's a shitload of gay votes for the far right parties (some of which have gay candidates), centrists "we just want to be treated like everyone"-types and radical queer activism on the left, and all of those sometimes even have conflicting positions on LGBT issues not on just general politics.
 
Here in the 2-party system the LGBT community was basically democrat by default because for awhile it seemed like republicans were actively trying to turn them away but that seems to slowly be changing
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Army Burger and VIVIIXI
Крыса said:
What the hell do people mean by "LGBT community" anyway, I feel like it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you include in that ?

Your local bar/nightlife scene, gay cycling club and orgy organiser ? those hardly have any agenda.
Click to expand...

It's my hope that in time that is all it will be. When we are normalized to the point there are no more battles to be fought, there will be no need for an agenda.
I think we are close to that point. In fact, I would say we're pretty much there, though I could be wrong and there could be some law/policy lurking on the books that I'm unaware of.

It may seem silly to want some sort of gay cycling club, but the reason for those sorts of things is so that people can meet in a way that allows them to have better chances of finding someone for more than a platonic relationship. It's a very uncomfortable thing for both parties when you hit on someone whose compass doesn't point in your general direction. These community activities/places minimize that. As far as I know, most of the bars I've been to are open to anybody, but when you go in you are essentially acknowledging that you might be hit on by someone of the same sex. Giving these places/activities that context allows people who don't feel comfortable with that a reasonable warning to avoid them.

Крыса said:
Political organisations / activist groups ? I don't know about the US maybe it's different over there but in Europe it makes ZERO sense to consider LGBT people as a monolithic block, there's a shitload of gay votes for the far right parties (some of which have gay candidates), centrists "we just want to be treated like everyone"-types and radical queer activism on the left, and all of those sometimes even have conflicting positions on LGBT issues not on just general politics.
Click to expand...

That's just the thing. We aren't a monolithic bloc. We have leftists, log-cabin republicans and moderates here as well. Perhaps I'm falling in to the trap of thinking in terms of the LGBT label as being synonymous with the activists in how I'd written previously because they get the most attention due to being the loudest. Because of that, they are more likely what people think of when they think of us.
But there were/are log cabin Republicans who walked among the conservatives and did their own forms of reaching out, even if it was simply being there while espousing various key values they shared with their fellow conservatives. In time, more conservatives began to accept their presence, and through them us as a whole. Even people with fairly religious views. "Hate the sin not the sinner," is a start after all. The Log-Cabins really don't get enough credit. They had to walk among people who hated them in the name of God.

The moderates give temperance for the other two by providing a middle ground, as is usually the case with moderates/centrists. A bridge between those two political communities.

Finally, you have to remember that there have been times when we did face very real persecution at the hands of the law itself. In the end, our common interest is in not being ostracized by larger society. We all have opinions on how to achieve that end which can be vastly different. Whether it's not rocking the boat or rocking the boat really hard until people get used to it.
As I said, I think/hope we are very close to a point where we can shuffle off the identity politics beyond having our little cycling clubs and maybe slapping warnings on our fanfics. I kind of think that aside from maybe remaining vigilant in a very few smaller rural areas, there really isn't as much need for activism as there was before... maybe the activists just don't realize that the boat needs to settle for awhile so we can take an honest look at where we are in that aspiration.

Or maybe a handful of them are little prancing Stalins.

(shrug)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: adorable bitch, SomeLameFurry, Wallace and 2 others
VIVIIXI said:
Or maybe a handful of them are little prancing Stalins.
Click to expand...
Hey, don't be unfair.
Comrade Stalin knew that homosexuality is a degenerate mental illness of the capitalist west, and made sure to emphasize that the New Soviet Man would not be an effete decadent sodomite but a strong, hard-working man who would raise many healthy children for the glory of the Soviet Union.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Army Burger, VIVIIXI and 1 other person
Toucan said:
Is it though?
Having a prostate orgasm is very common during anal sex.



The vagina is for pissing out of?
Sex is dirty.



But its not happenstance for the vagina despite fulfilling the same criteria solely because you say so?


You are funny :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points but pee doesn't come out of the vagina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elysian, Silence of the Troons, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 2 others
SomeRandomJosh said:
A bit off-topic (and a bit too much powerlevel) but still a legit question, is there any signs or ways to at least try to identify someone's sexuality?
I have a co-worker (at the same enterprise but not at the same room / section) that is "softer" (I don't really know how to describe tbh) compared to every single other man here (PS: there is a dude that works here that is gay but he is very different from him) , we don't talk to each other everyday but I think he might like me, everytime we talk (about random subjects like the latest game) it seems very obvious to me that he is making an effort to keep talking with me and knowing better me, I want to at least try to figure out if he is actually interested in me or he is just trying to be friendly, I dont like the ideia of just asking right on his face (wich I think is very rude) but I also don't want to keep this for too long and make he think that I like him as a bf.

Aditional info: his facebook friends are quite balanced (not too much guys or girls) wich might be an indicator for some people
Click to expand...

It's possible that they're an awkward gay dude feeling you out, or that they're an awkward gay dude who just enjoys being around you. If you don't say you like someone, only a retard would assume you wanna be bfs and there's nothing you can do about other people's autism so if you enjoy talking, keep talking; if not, don't. The gay thing doesn't mean too much unless you let it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Army Burger, guccigash, Professional iPad Hoarder and 1 other person
RedRightHand said:
Thoughts as a monogamic bisexual, I despise the thought of being grouped into a tribe. The notion of 'LGBT' as a sort of collective is a inherently political thing, it is very good for gathering votes, but I find it unironically dehumanising to be reduced into some sort of nebulous label.
I see myself as my own thing, and I don't care what trends go on within the 'community' because for me it is completely artificial and only sustained thanks to the media and ingroup mentality of some people.
This is just my honest opinion with zero filters, call it what you will, hubris, arrogance, or whatever you want, I'm just very apathetic to this sorta thing. Similarly, if I was hypothetically a woman, I would dislike being in the group of 'women' in that I must care about 'woman's issues'. There are no woman's issues, there are people's issues, it is political divide and conquer. Does it mean I can't empathise with the plight of gays in Russia? No, it doesn't, I care. The other thing that irks me is the fact whenever someone comes out, the media obsesses over it like it is some fetish, if I was famous, I'd be honestly very reluctant to come out in the knowledge the media would obsess over it like that. In a ideal world it shouldn't be even newsworthy, it should be the equivalent of 'what is your favourite colour?'
In essence, I do not rely on belonging to a tribe to know myself.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my thoughts exactly, I don't want anything to do with anything "LGBT", it's all a big clique where everyone wants to share the same thoughts and feelings on everything. The LGBT clique doesn't particularly like gay men in the first place, it's all political, it can go to hell. My personal belief is that what I have is a mental disorder of some sort, and that is never going to fly with the cliquey LGBT crowd. I find that people either get super offended at the idea that it could be a disorder or start throwing pity at me because they think I hate myself because I believe I have a disorder. To me it comes across extremely arrogant and insecure to be so threatened by the idea that something could be wrong with you, it seems to me that people are terrified of contending with the idea that they aren't perfect when they assume I must be self-hating because I think there's something wrong with my brain.


While I'm writing all of this I'd like to clarify that my last post in this thread was posted by mistake because I thought this was the shitpost PM I'm in with an extremely similar name lol. That's what happens when I have a million tabs open constantly.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: adorable bitch, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, ︈︈︈ and 4 others
714583
 
  • Winner
  • Feels
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Yugica, Isaac Clarke, Puff and 14 others
Toucan said:
Is it though?
Having a prostate orgasm is very common during anal sex.
Click to expand...
The prostate does not exist for sexual pleasure. It is involved in sexual reproduction, but the fact that it makes anal feel good is completely ancillary to its actual purpose of aiding semen production. The vagina is the ONLY sexual organ in women made specifically for sexual intercourse via direct stimulation. Anal can be enjoyable for females and they lack a prostate, while most men can't stand or don't like anal even with one. However, vaginal and penal stimulation via vaginal intercourse are the natural and main methods for sexual intercourse, and they exist specifically for the purpose of said intercourse, with the penis having the second purpose of expelling urine, which it does outside of normal sexual intercourse.

Toucan said:
The vagina is for pissing out of?
Sex is dirty.
Click to expand...
Several people have already pointed out how pants-shittingly exceptional this statement is, so I won't bother.

Toucan said:
But its not happenstance for the vagina despite fulfilling the same criteria solely because you say so?
Click to expand...
The vagina isn't happenstance, its biology. People get turned on or find sexual pleasure in the weirdest shit; some people get turned on by having their ears nibbled, some people like being licked, some people like being pissed on, some people like being stepped on. But the vagina and penis are designed specifically for sexual stimulation and stimulating one or the other for sexual purposes is natural biology, not happenstance.

Toucan said:
You are funny :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Not sure why you thought that was funny, just stating a simple fact.
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: turboNIG-3k and Slap47
Woops, so I put this in it's own thread and realized I should probably put it here. reposting:

"Something I've been thinking about for awhile after reading some of the threads here.

From what I've seen, "bottom surgery" on a guy (essentially removing the testicles, and inverting the penis to make a "vagina") isn't as simple or effective as the media makes it sound. I've read tons of horror stories (see Jazz) about surgeries gone wrong and the after-effects of having that type of surgery. It also seems insanely extreme to mutilate your genitals to the point of actually cutting them off because you like wearing dresses and living as a woman. I personally have a hard time grasping why ANYONE would think that's a great idea, especially doctors.

On one hand, I know if you're an adult, you're kind of responsible for your own body. Plenty of people do body modifications, and they have every right to do it. But if you consider being "transgender" a mental issue, then doctors are essentially mutilating the body of a mentally unstable individual, and doing a surgery that is not only irreversible, but messy, and from everything I've read requires.. erm.. requires maintenance and what not. In many cases the outcome is less than be desired anyway, to say the least.

Furthermore "bottom surgery", as opposed to what's normally spouted by the media, isn't a cure-all for someone who identifies as a transgender person.

According to this "people who have had sex reassignment surgery are approximately 20 times more likely than the general population to die by suicide."

Lastly, and I'm not sure what the laws are, but it seems CHILDREN can be given puberty blockers. From what I've read there really isn't any evidence to suggest they're ever reversible.

While I think it may be possible for some children to have "gender dysphoria", in most cases it seems like some weird idea a parent (usually the mom) decides to push on their kids because they feel super "woke". Basically a boy puts on a dress (LIKE TONS OF BOYS DO WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG), and the mom is like "dear god, he's a she!".

I also do believe children, or at least teens can have sex reassignment surgery as well. Correct me if I'm wrong (?) but if that's true, that's just disgusting.

Thoughts?"

Sorry if this has already been discussed. This thread is huge.. but anyway, like I said above the more and more I read about sex reassignment surgery the more I'm surprised doctors actually do it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Silence of the Troons, vertexwindi, ︈︈︈ and 3 others
The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
The vagina isn't happenstance, its biology. People get turned on or find sexual pleasure in the weirdest shit; some people get turned on by having their ears nibbled, some people like being licked, some people like being pissed on, some people like being stepped on. But the vagina and penis are designed specifically for sexual stimulation and stimulating one or the other for sexual purposes is natural biology, not happenstance.
Click to expand...
It's not even that the vagina exists for sexual pleasure: having vaginal sex is the only way to have procreate naturally whether you're enjoying it or not.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kalishnakov, Silence of the Troons, GeneralFriendliness and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back