LGBTQiwis

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Doktor Grimm said:
I kind of always thought the former necessitated the latter. The "bisexual" perspective is really interesting -- they seem like mutually incompatible forms of attraction.
Click to expand...
I never really understood this perspective. It's sort of like saying that there are some people who like chocolate and some people who like vanilla, but then expressing incredulity at the idea that there are some people who could be capable of liking both.
California Newt said:
Incidentally, I've always been very attracted to women. For some odd reason people have found that hard to believe.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly odd for people to make assumptions when someone's posting history reveals a peculiar fixation with the subject of homosexuality.
 
Hellbound Hellhound said:
I never really understood this perspective. It's sort of like saying that there are some people who like chocolate and some people who like vanilla, but then expressing incredulity at the idea that there are some people who could be capable of liking both.
Click to expand...
@Doktor Grimm has talked about some men thinking of masculinity as something external to themselves, which is why they eroticise it. That's very different from the average bisexual experience, which is to start with an auto-erotic impulse (related to what fat women call "praise kink") and then learn to project it outward, typically by self-inserting into porn.

You don't parse the men as wholly distinct from yourself at first, which is why it doesn't feel "gay". It only feels as gay as watching hardcore porn does for any straight man (which if you think about it is already very weird—you're watching some dude have sex).

Masks, helmets, and furries are popular with these guys for that reason: the face individuates—it's the body-part that makes it the most clear that you're not viewing an extension of yourself. A lot of guys never clear that hurdle; the face obstructs the "flow" from your candle (I'm realizing this is an unintentionally phallic analogy).

Sensitization can overcome that, but you also get an odd "demisexual" turn in a lot of them: making a connection "opens a channel" for the flame to pass through. It still wounds the conscience analogously to incest, but sensitization can clear that hurdle too.

A nasty side effect is that it can be hard to decouple homosexuality from homosociality (which is much more interesting of a subject—homosociality, I mean) past a certain degree of closeness.

Hellbound Hellhound said:
It's not exactly odd for people to make assumptions when someone's posting history reveals a peculiar fixation with the subject of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
That's fair. It's just that there's no reason to post about women or heterosexuality when there's no question or argument to be had about it. I post more about that in Gorl Tawk and places like that—those are touchy issues over there. By the same token, I'm almost totally absent from the "faggot-hate" thread.

I actually wrote the stuff the the spoiler above a few days ago (and was even going to use the same food analogy as you), but decided not to post it. As much as I wanted to clarify things for @Doktor Grimm , I couldn't shake the feeling that I wasn't helping so much as making a space for something to fester.

I'm not saying it's ever bad to ask questions, but it's important to have discipline in how to go about finding answers. What I should have done was find resources on the structure of attraction in general, which would have indirectly answered the question—and more—without inviting anything into the head that shouldn't be there.

But if two people are confused from opposite ends it might make to just spill the beans and demystify it, just so no more attention gets wasted on the question.
 
Last edited:
Can you spergs make a point in less than 5000 words? I'm not reading all this. Personally I think gay marriage is retarded, people loudly and proudly acting like faggots should be shamed, and attending a pride event should carry such an enormous social stigma that it basically ruins your life.

Honestly I wouldn't care if it meant hiding in the closet for the rest of my life, I'm just so sick of seeing this radioactive waste everywhere. It's especially frustrating when these people also claim to be an ally while they spread this radioactive waste that makes normies fucking hate your kind.
California Newt said:
—
Click to expand...
Em dash? Are you outsourcing your posts to an LLM or are you an English major who now wastes time writing essays on homosexuals?
 
Riftrunner said:
ersonally I think gay marriage is retarded, people loudly and proudly acting like faggots should be shamed, and attending a pride event should carry such an enormous social stigma that it basically ruins your life.
Click to expand...
Okay, why? I am genuinely curious as to your opinion and why you hold them.
 
If civil unions don't offer the same benefits as marriage, then I believe that forbidding gay-marriages is not only retarded, but extremely unjust.

It's not that difficult to comprehend, if two people decide to go through this (ideally because they love each other), then let them. Why should it be that because they're attracted to the same sex they should be denied of such a thing?

Argument 1: because the definition, marriage is "between a man & a woman". >>> You can change that, according to common-sense standards, such as: "between two people who love each other".

Argument 2: "marriage is for procreation". >>> Bullshit, as married people also may not procreate even if they wanted, but they also may not want to in the first place, and such is their right.

Argument 3: "goes against the wishes of god". >>> Goes against the imaginary friend that is supposedly all loving, yet would either send to hell someone loving a person of the same sex (such compassion), or would not approve of such love (how tolerant). Yeah, sounds like this god is the manifestation of archaic, retarded human beliefs from some thousands of years ago, and not something divine.

Argument 4: "homosexuality is immoral". >>> That makes no fucking sense, and is not inherently by itself, according to the definition unless you poison the well. Like the previous, this sense of morality stems from religion, which are archaic beliefs rooted in human ignorance & intolerance. In its purest form, homosexuality just means that the person is attracted to one of the same sex (includes not only sexual attraction, but also romantic attraction, just like heterosexuality).
 
stonky said:
The current Republican Party is going all in on Trump and Project 2025, which I recommend you look into. It’s not exactly friendly to gay people.
I think saying that somehow republicans are the lesser of two evils is quite possibly one of the more interesting takes, especially from someone in a marginalized community that stands to lose from supporting them.
If you want real change, you shouldn’t vote for one of the two big fuckers that rule everything, because at the end of the day they’re all fascist pedophiles. Vote for what you believe in, even if it’s third party.


Unfortunately that’s what every faggot sissy says :roll:
Click to expand...
I aint gay nigga

Dont react to my post with rainbow flags. As a straight man, I admire rainbows for their beauty. But as a symbol of homosexuality, I do not support the rainbow
 
Last edited by a moderator:
California Newt said:
@Doktor Grimm has talked about some men thinking of masculinity as something external to themselves, which is why they eroticise it. That's very different from the average bisexual experience, which is to start with an auto-erotic impulse (related to what fat women call "praise kink") and then learn to project it outward, typically by self-inserting into porn.

You don't parse the men as wholly distinct from yourself at first, which is why it doesn't feel "gay". It only feels as gay as watching hardcore porn does for any straight man (which if you think about it is already very weird—you're watching some dude have sex).

Masks, helmets, and furries are popular with these guys for that reason: the face individuates—it's the body-part that makes it the most clear that you're not viewing an extension of yourself. A lot of guys never clear that hurdle; the face obstructs the "flow" from your candle (I'm realizing this is an unintentionally phallic analogy).

Sensitization can overcome that, but you also get an odd "demisexual" turn in a lot of them: making a connection "opens a channel" for the flame to pass through. It still wounds the conscience analogously to incest, but sensitization can clear that hurdle too.

A nasty side effect is that it can be hard to decouple homosexuality from homosociality (which is much more interesting of a subject—homosociality, I mean) past a certain degree of closeness.
Click to expand...
That sounds rather Freudian, but I'm not convinced that people become attracted to members of the same sex because they view them as an extension of themselves, especially for guys, since male sexuality is often strongly tied to an active desire to do sexual things with another person.

It's certainly true that the appeal of pornography largely lies in it's ability to encourage people to engage in vicarious sexual fantasies, but I don't buy the hypothesis that this can turn people gay. It might awaken certain desires that were already there, but I don't think a straight person would derive enjoyment from content which encourages them to imagine themselves engaging in homosexual activity.
California Newt said:
That's fair. It's just that there's no reason to post about women or heterosexuality when there's no question or argument to be had about it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I agree, because when I look at the state of heterosexual dating nowadays, I can see that there's a lot wrong with it. This isn't to say that the gay community has it's house in order either, but I feel confident in saying that there's probably never been a better time in history to be gay than right now (in the secular/developed world, at least). My perception of the straight majority, by contrast, is that they're getting progressively less happy, and increasingly less satisfied with their choice of romantic partners.
 
Hellbound Hellhound said:
My perception of the straight majority, by contrast, is that they're getting progressively less happy, and increasingly less satisfied with their choice of romantic partners.
Click to expand...
There's lots of issues within fag dating (like the cheating, sex addictions, open relationships, etc.), but I noticed that there's also a huge gender divide. I still think we will see many move to ai husbands and wives, or accept being alone and not marrying ever. I'm still of the, somewhat optimistic, belief that the gender divide is overblown, but the issue has been growing rapidly.
 
ludwigvonmises said:
People can call me gay all they want but I never had gay sex, thats all I know
Click to expand...
It is a fact that half of your posts on Kiwifarms were made to ensure others that you're not homosexual.

okiguess.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom