-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
I guess I just want to be able to say "I'm gay" without people wondering if I'm a top or bottom.
I guess this topic is far too controversial. It all end up with: Is it easier to change society or try to adapt to it as is?
EDIT:
The main problem is not the a-sex it self it is the fact thta people(and some gays) assume that because you are gay you will do it.
I think you think people are far more interested in your sex life than they actually are. Moreover, the people who do care and will judge you for it are going to judge you regardless, no matter how much you try to publically advertise your private sexual proclivities.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kesnit
Which does not at all address what Zurvan said.
Zurvan's comment did not address who he dates. The context comes up when he is dating (or at least, in a sexual situation). Because a lot of gay men do assume that gay = has anal sex. The question they ask in their mind is not "does the guy I'm making out with do anal?" It's "is the guy I am making out with a top, a bottom, or a switch?"
Is this the case? My sample is small but days otherwise. The gay men I've known joke about it but prefer, uh, speaking French, as the budgies say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
I think androgen blockers without estrogen replacement would actually make one grow taller than one otherwise might. Estrogen is involved in the fusion of the epiphyses of the long bones. In the male body, estrogen is produced by aromatising testosterone. There's less of it, so the long bones fuse later and males tend to be taller. With no estrogen and no testosterone, the long bones take longer to fuse. That's why eunuchs are often taller than intact men.
Anyway, there would be less muscle development, less of the wide shoulders and whatnot, and less androgenic hair, even if you start androgen blockers at seventeen. That stuff doesn't finish until later most of the time, even if the genitals are finished developing earlier.
Man, that would have been ideal. Sigh. :smallfrown:
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
I guess I just want to be able to say "I'm gay" without people wondering if I'm a top or bottom.
I've never in my life wondered that. Actually, for most of my life I always assumed gay guys who did anal enjoyed both. I only recently learned that some prefer one to the other and even some only do one. Of course I'm neither male nor gay so I might not be part of your target demographic.
A few things confuse me about your posts. First, if anal sex means one person is "being a man" and the other is "being a woman" why doesn't the same apply to blowjobs or jerking someone off? I don't see what's so different with anal sex that it defines you more in a submissive or dominant role than the other sex acts do. It's not about the act, it's about who you do it with and how you act while you do it. There are absolutely women who give men anal sex, and even women who give men anal sex while being submissive.
Of course, most people who have anal sex are straight, so I'm also confused about "anal sex and gay go together".
And finally, I've always heard from gay guys I know that the good thing about being gay is that you always end up talking to know what the other is into. Do they like anal sex? Do they like oral sex? And that because of that, it's much easier than for straight people, because it's way more common for a gay guy to completely expect another gay guy not to be into anal sex, and be fine with the idea that they might never do it with that partner (for instance, since that's what you're talking about) than for a straight guy to expect a woman not to be into vaginal intercourse, and be fine with the idea that they might never do it with that partner.
So I'm surprised you're having that issue of people expecting you to be into anal sex. I guess the solution is to say you aren't.
Oh, and is liking women as well a requirement to be g0y? (I had to google it too. Looks like pretty much everyone here did. Never heard or seen the term before). If so, why base the word on "gay" instead of "bi" or "pan" or something?
As people have said, "cis" means "on the same side". It doesn't make a lot of sense on its own of course, like "hetero" (different) and homo (the same) don't make that much sense on their own, but do as prefixes. None of those things are acronyms.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kesnit
Which does not at all address what Zurvan said.
Zurvan's comment did not address who he dates. The context comes up when he is dating (or at least, in a sexual situation). Because a lot of gay men do assume that gay = has anal sex. The question they ask in their mind is not "does the guy I'm making out with do anal?" It's "is the guy I am making out with a top, a bottom, or a switch?"
Which is cleared up at, what, basically at the same level as making sure to ask for and get consent and practicing safe sex?
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Is this the case? My sample is small but days otherwise. The gay men I've known joke about it but prefer, uh, speaking French, as the budgies say.
I didn't say all gay men think that way. I said a lot do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Coidzor
Which is cleared up at, what, basically at the same level as making sure to ask for and get consent and practicing safe sex?
Not always. Sure, if the context is in a dating relationship where the men involved are spending time together before getting intimate, most couples will talk about it first. But that is not always the case. My post was written from the point of view of a random hookup, not an established relationship.
That isn't to say gay men never discuss those issues, even in random hookups. My only point is that many gay men assume that other gay men are into anal. I didn't say that being told "no, I don't do anal" is going to make those men so angry they force the issue. The question was 100% at face value - two guys hooking up, and one asks "are you a top or a bottom?"
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Is this the case? My sample is small but days otherwise. The gay men I've known joke about it but prefer, uh, speaking French, as the budgies say.
Mind explaining what you mean with "speaking French" and "budgies"? I went to both Google and UrbanDictionary for help, to no avail. That's really rare.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
First I'd like to state that I think this thread is a wonderful idea. :smallsmile:
I have a somewhat controversial question, I'm afraid, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
How does the LGBTAI+ community feel about incest? Well, more generally speaking, sexual relationships amongst close relatives.
Now, I'm obviously not speaking about abuse, it's not a necessary conclusion. That would be like my father thinking being gay is necessarily also being a pedophile.
I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships between adults who happen to be closely related.
Surprisingly, most people I've talked to who incidentally deemed themselves to be very tolerant and open-minded still consider that kind of relationship a taboo.
Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
First I'd like to state that I think this thread is a wonderful idea. :smallsmile:
I have a somewhat controversial question, I'm afraid, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
How does the LGBTAI+ community feel about incest? Well, more generally speaking, sexual relationships amongst close relatives.
Now, I'm obviously not speaking about abuse, it's not a necessary conclusion. That would be like my father thinking being gay is necessarily also being a pedophile.
I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships between adults who happen to be closely related.
Surprisingly, most people I've talked to who incidentally deemed themselves to be very tolerant and open-minded still consider that kind of relationship a taboo.
Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:
The biggest concern would probably be the potential power imbalance, say between child and parent or older sibling. Other than that I'd say it's not really a big deal as long as contraceptives are being used. We already have enough genetic problems in the gene pool without that.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
That's not something the community as a whole agrees about. (There's already little consensus among the community about LGBT-related stuff, so opinions about highly controversial subjects such as incest differ a lot from individual to individual.)
If you're looking for those individual opinions though, here's mine:
Spoiler
Show
Leaving aside subjective sentiments that I can't rationalize very well, here's what I think:
- It's one of those sexual behaviours that probably shouldn't become the norm the way heterosexuality is. We know that children born of incest actually rarely suffer from genetic disorders, so it's not a big problem when it happens occasionally. However, if it becomes generalized, you're going to face genetic disorders a few generations down the road. Reference: European royalty centuries ago. (Of course, that is invalid in the case of any relationship that doesn't result in any children.)
- Genetic and social diversity is important. The former because it tends to make for healthier children (but that's no exact science, and there's no reason to judge someone either because their partner isn't different enough), the latter because it's important for kids to have varied life experiences, and it helps them finding out new lifestyles, or in the case of abuse or family problems, understand that their situation is not the norm and that something better exists out there. (Again, moot if no children are produced.)
- In practice, many incestuous relationships do involve abuse. Of course, abuse of one's power and authority are much less likely to happen if both participants are from the same generation.
- I consider it's important to be able to separate the diverse aspects of one's life: professional, sentimental, familial, etc. When your romantic life mingles with your family life, any problem you have with your brother/mother/cousin/etc gets a much bigger impact on your life. My mother is difficult enough dealing with already just being my mother; a world where she'd also be my mother-in-law or my sister-in-law looks a lot like Hell overall!
Caveats: most of these concerns are irrelevant when such a relationship produces no child, and the other half might change in a society more accepting of incest (the same way an adult couple living with one's parents implies very different dynamics in 1100's Europe and in 2010's Europe).
At any rate, if nobody's hurt, my discomfort is irrelevant anyway. I have the decency of shutting up in such a case instead of voicing my judgment at least.
History might prove my feelings wrong or not, etc etc.
EDIT: remembering the reality of romantic life (aka the possibility of breakup), I believe I can also safely say that you probably don't ever want to take the risk of one of your parents, or siblings, or other close relative, being also your ex.
It's bad enough when your work colleague or previously close friend becomes your ex, even if they're amiable about it. But someone you're likely to see often and deal with until one of you dies? That's gonna be complicated. Which is an euphemism. (Maybe that's just me having a cynic opinion about humanity in general, though.)
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
On the incest topic, I am personally uncomfortable with it if it's a parent and child because of the power dynamics at play, but if nobody is getting hurt and it's a healthy loving relationship my personal discomfort is not reason to condemn something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gwynfrid
Mind explaining what you mean with "speaking French" and "budgies"? I went to both Google and UrbanDictionary for help, to no avail. That's really rare.
There resides on these boards a glorious budgie (I.E. parakeet) named kneenibble. I and a few other men had quite the crushes on him, and would sometimes talk about doing things with our tongues to him like speaking french to him.
I'm sure you can trace the subtext from there.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
golentan
There resides on these boards a glorious budgie (I.E. parakeet) named kneenibble. I and a few other men had quite the crushes on him, and would sometimes talk about doing things with our tongues to him like speaking french to him.
I'm sure you can trace the subtext from there.
Ah, just a private joke then. Thanks.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kesnit
I didn't say all gay men think that way. I said a lot do.
Not always. Sure, if the context is in a dating relationship where the men involved are spending time together before getting intimate, most couples will talk about it first. But that is not always the case. My post was written from the point of view of a random hookup, not an established relationship.
That isn't to say gay men never discuss those issues, even in random hookups. My only point is that many gay men assume that other gay men are into anal. I didn't say that being told "no, I don't do anal" is going to make those men so angry they force the issue. The question was 100% at face value - two guys hooking up, and one asks "are you a top or a bottom?"
Yeah, if white, cishet guys can live with getting consent, GRSM can too.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
How does the LGBTAI+ community feel about incest? Well, more generally speaking, sexual relationships amongst close relatives.
Now, I'm obviously not speaking about abuse, it's not a necessary conclusion. That would be like my father thinking being gay is necessarily also being a pedophile.
I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships between adults who happen to be closely related.
Surprisingly, most people I've talked to who incidentally deemed themselves to be very tolerant and open-minded still consider that kind of relationship a taboo.
Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:
I'm a bit squicked by the idea in general, but in principle I don't have any problem with two relatives of about the same age engaging in a romantic or sexual relationship. With bigger age gaps (and especially with generation gaps) you run into a lot of issues with power dynamics and whatnot. Otherwise, the genetic factor isn't a huge deal (for opposite-sex, sexually active couples) unless you have several generations of inbreeding. As a society we don't seem to be against people with, for example, Huntington's disease breeding, and that's a 50% chance of passing down a significant, life-shortening disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mono Vertigo
Spoiler
Show
EDIT: remembering the reality of romantic life (aka the possibility of breakup), I believe I can also safely say that you probably don't ever want to take the risk of one of your parents, or siblings, or other close relative, being also your ex.
It's bad enough when your work colleague or previously close friend becomes your ex, even if they're amiable about it. But someone you're likely to see often and deal with until one of you dies? That's gonna be complicated. Which is an euphemism. (Maybe that's just me having a cynic opinion about humanity in general, though.)
Man it's so confusing when people change their names. At least don't change your avatar until I'm used to this name. :smalltongue:
But yeah. The breakup thing is probably the biggest concern besides the power dynamics and potential for abuse. That would be like, the worst thing.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
That's a ethics question, I think.
Personally, it is never okay to settle for a bad thing. The easy way is easy, not right. The right way is right. :smallsmile:
What if the right way is also impossible in this lifetime?
I mean I can work for change. But when it finally happens (since it is a gradual process) I will not be there to be part of it. So what is the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kesnit
I didn't say all gay men think that way. I said a lot do.
My only point is that many gay men assume that other gay men are into anal. I didn't say that being told "no, I don't do anal" is going to make those men so angry they force the issue. The question was 100% at face value - two guys hooking up, and one asks "are you a top or a bottom?"
That. And that's just wrong. It should not work like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lissou
I've never in my life wondered that. Actually, for most of my life I always assumed gay guys who did anal enjoyed both. I only recently learned that some prefer one to the other and even some only do one. Of course I'm neither male nor gay so I might not be part of your target demographic.
A few things confuse me about your posts. First, if anal sex means one person is "being a man" and the other is "being a woman" why doesn't the same apply to blowjobs or jerking someone off? I don't see what's so different with anal sex that it defines you more in a submissive or dominant role than the other sex acts do. It's not about the act, it's about who you do it with and how you act while you do it. There are absolutely women who give men anal sex, and even women who give men anal sex while being submissive.
Of course, most people who have anal sex are straight, so I'm also confused about "anal sex and gay go together".
And finally, I've always heard from gay guys I know that the good thing about being gay is that you always end up talking to know what the other is into. Do they like anal sex? Do they like oral sex? And that because of that, it's much easier than for straight people, because it's way more common for a gay guy to completely expect another gay guy not to be into anal sex, and be fine with the idea that they might never do it with that partner (for instance, since that's what you're talking about) than for a straight guy to expect a woman not to be into vaginal intercourse, and be fine with the idea that they might never do it with that partner.
So I'm surprised you're having that issue of people expecting you to be into anal sex. I guess the solution is to say you aren't.
Oh, and is liking women as well a requirement to be g0y? (I had to google it too. Looks like pretty much everyone here did. Never heard or seen the term before). If so, why base the word on "gay" instead of "bi" or "pan" or something?
As people have said, "cis" means "on the same side". It doesn't make a lot of sense on its own of course, like "hetero" (different) and homo (the same) don't make that much sense on their own, but do as prefixes. None of those things are acronyms.
Well I guess it is because you have a degree of contact with the LGBT culture. But people who never had contact with it normally have many theories and fantasies about the whole thing, it is all very mystical and mysterious for them. They normally ask a lot of questions since they are curious and on their mind the act works in "insert A into B" kind of way(Some gays also think like that).
Oh yeah the "being a man" thing. Well kind of hard to talk about that without breaking the rules...
Let's just say that in these forms of intercurse both can feel the same type of sensation. But me personaly. I'm not a big fan of those too. I mean they are better then A-sex since it was used as a form of torture and humiliation in the old days. but there are better non invasive forms. Again hard to talk about without breaking the rules... Let's just say g0ys like to sword fight but not necessarily with swords. And this could be the norm.
Of course, most people who have anal sex are straight but the problem is that if you are gay people assume you do it. While if you are straight no one will imagine you do that unless you say.
Well the reaction of both straight and gay people when I say I don't like it is like "O_o"
I guess it is not. To be a g0y you just need to be a guy who like guys and don't see yourself in the gay culture.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
Let's just say that in these forms of intercurse both can feel the same type of sensation. But me personaly. I'm not a big fan of those too. I mean they are better then A-sex since it was used as a form of torture and humiliation in the old days. but there are better non invasive forms. Again hard to talk about without breaking the rules... Let's just say g0ys like to sword fight but not necessarily with swords. And this could be the norm.
As I explained in the PM I sent you, this is terrible reasoning for many reasons.
Spoiler: Potential trigger warning, the difference between use and abuse
Show
In prison if the door's locked it's a form of punishment, but at home locking the door is a comfortable part of your security routine for many people that makes them feel happy. A shower is pleasant and enjoyable, but it has many similarities with chinese water torture.
The better a tool is at doing its job, the worse it is when it is being abused. That doesn't mean that power drills should be avoided because some people are sadistic psychopaths.
You don't have to like it, but it's a very likable activity for many people. And your repeated insinuations that it's badwrongfun and comparisons to rape aren't really... helpful. If you don't like it, just don't do it, and let people who would make assumptions choke on them, but please stop making this metaphor. It's verging on triggering for me.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
On incest: like a lot of people here, I'm fine with it when there is a certain level of equality. Siblings, for instance. A parent and a child, for me to be comfortable with that, would need to meet once both are already adult: linked genetically, but not through one raising the other. Things like cousins I don't even consider incest since they're so distant genetically it doesn't matter anymore at this point (and I'm not the only one who thinks that: marriage between cousins is legal in most of the first world).
I don't think it would ever become super common, because of the Westermarck effect (most people cannot develop sexual attraction to people they were raised around). I think having incestuous children is mostly not a problem, although if there is a history of a hereditary recessive trait that would be pretty bad to pass on, I would encourage adoption over genetic children. Speaking of which, historically incest hasn't been about genes, since it applies to adopted relatives just as much as non-adopted ones. So I do think the taboo is mostly linked to the aforementioned Westermarck effect. For that reason, I don't think the taboo will ever completely vanish, it would probably always be something weird at the least, and probably will always be discriminated against in some way.
@Zurvan: I understand. I think you might be a bit "different" for not liking anal sex. I also understand what you mean by other forms of sex (many are available to opposite-sex couples as well although they're rarely talked about and some don't have a commonly accepted name).
I don't really have a solution to your problem, but it is my understanding that being gay and not enjoying or wanting anal sex really isn't that rare. Yes, less than 50% I would say, but that still leaves a lot of people. Definitely not as small a minority that, for instance, gay people among the general population.
Maybe you can hook up with other guys who feel the same way you do and meet them based on that, and it wouldn't be an issue. After all, you can't just hope to meet guys since most are straight, but gay guys still find each other. The same can apply to finding someone who enjoys the same kind of sex you do (regardless of orientation, really).
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kesnit
I didn't say all gay men think that way. I said a lot do.
And I said "is that accurate?", but restating our points doesn't address the question, it restates the points.
You believe this a thing among gay men. My evidence says otherwise. Why do you think it is a thing among gay men? Do you have evidence which accounts for the existence of my own? Or would it be possible that In This conversation, at least one person is influenced by their ecosystem and has an incorrect idea (regardless of who that person is)?
I think admitting that you're working with subjective data and ten continuing to insist on it as though it were objective is a poor position to take.
Additional data: I've only met one gay male who was openly into A.S., and he specifically mentioned how rare and not standard that was. Supernerd, specifically. Does anyone have clearer memory of said poster's stuff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gwynfrid
Mind explaining what you mean with "speaking French" and "budgies"? I went to both Google and UrbanDictionary for help, to no avail. That's really rare.
Euphemisms to avoid mod wrath. Elaborating on deeds is sufficient for a warning, so I'm not doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
First I'd like to state that I think this thread is a wonderful idea. :smallsmile:
I have a somewhat controversial question, I'm afraid, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
How does the LGBTAI+ community feel about incest? Well, more generally speaking, sexual relationships amongst close relatives.
Now, I'm obviously not speaking about abuse, it's not a necessary conclusion. That would be like my father thinking being gay is necessarily also being a pedophile.
I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships between adults who happen to be closely related.
Surprisingly, most people I've talked to who incidentally deemed themselves to be very tolerant and open-minded still consider that kind of relationship a taboo.
Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:
I am of no mind in general. It would require looking at a specific relationship and context for judgement. For example, plenty of things that are BadWrongNo are actually good in the right context, even if that context is usually fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
What if the right way is also impossible in this lifetime?
I mean I can work for change. But when it finally happens (since it is a gradual process) I will not be there to be part of it. So what is the point?
This makes me melancholy. Ah well.
I hope you will be an exceptional human being who will guide generations for decades to come, not because it made you comfortable, but because it made the rest of the world comfortable forever after. Because when one is dust, comfort is gone, but legacy remains.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Thank you very much for your responses. :smallsmile: Those are very sensible stances, in my humble opinion, and those I had come to hope for in the community.
... I'm not myself in such a relationship by the way, just as I said, I was a bit surprised at the self-evidence with which self-declared open-minded people condemned sexual relationships amongst close relatives because of arguments which usually amounted to "gross!" (apart from the danger of genetic disorders, which is of course only a problem for sexually active heterosexual couples, and even then not nearly as likely as people like to think, as noparlpf and Mono Vertigo so eloquently stated already). Good to read more nuanced opinions here.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
And I said "is that accurate?", but restating our points doesn't address the question, it restates the points.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. I took your comment as "that isn't true because I know gay men who don't think that way."
Quote:
You believe this a thing among gay men. My evidence says otherwise. Why do you think it is a thing among gay men?
Because I know a lot of gay men who think that way. And I was trying to refute what I thought was your statement, and not what you meant.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
aberratio ictus: Putting this in spoilers. Spoiler: TW: incest, abuse
Show
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
First I'd like to state that I think this thread is a wonderful idea. :smallsmile:
I have a somewhat controversial question, I'm afraid, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.
How does the LGBTAI+ community feel about incest? Well, more generally speaking, sexual relationships amongst close relatives.
Now, I'm obviously not speaking about abuse, it's not a necessary conclusion. That would be like my father thinking being gay is necessarily also being a pedophile.
I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships between adults who happen to be closely related.
Surprisingly, most people I've talked to who incidentally deemed themselves to be very tolerant and open-minded still consider that kind of relationship a taboo.
Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:
Well, yeah. :smallconfused: Incest
is taboo in Western society, that's part of why "doing it with twins/siblings," is a pornographic fantasy. Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't anymore, it's just derided, villified, and hated by a thankfully shrinking part of the population.
Frankly I have no opinion on the general concept of cousins or siblings doing it in a non-abusive, non-exploitative form; though the greater the gap in age between an older sibling and a younger one the more the power dynamic resembles that of parent-and-child, which is not only taboo, but one of the few things I'll call evil and mean it on a metaphysical level, abuse of a child by their parent(s).
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
Thank you very much for your responses. :smallsmile: Those are very sensible stances, in my humble opinion, and those I had come to hope for in the community.
... I'm not myself in such a relationship by the way, just as I said, I was a bit surprised at the self-evidence with which self-declared open-minded people condemned sexual relationships amongst close relatives because of arguments which usually amounted to "gross!" (apart from the danger of genetic disorders, which is of course only a problem for sexually active heterosexual couples, and even then not nearly as likely as people like to think, as noparlpf and Mono Vertigo so eloquently stated already). Good to read more nuanced opinions here.
The thing is, it's not just "gross", we're biologically hardwired to consider it gross. The Westermarck Effect makes it near impossible for most people to consider their close family members sexually attractive, and makes the idea seem repulsive.
Note: This is not an argument for or against incest. I don't have enough data to express an informed opinion on that, and I dislike expressing uninformed opinions.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heliomance
The thing is, it's not just "gross", we're biologically hardwired to consider it gross. The Westermarck Effect makes it near impossible for most people to consider their close family members sexually attractive, and makes the idea seem repulsive.
Whether it's biologically hardwired to feel gross or not, the argument still is "gross". I'm familiar with the Westermarck Effect, as I do have siblings. In my opinion, it still is not an argument concerning people who are not affected by the effect.
Coidzor - you seem to have taken my question as a slight towards Homosexuality. That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if I wasn't able to convey my intentions in a satisfactory way.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
I guess I just want to be able to say "I'm gay" without people wondering if I'm a top or bottom.
I guess this topic is far too controversial. It all end up with: Is it easier to change society or try to adapt to it as is?
EDIT:
The main problem is not the a-sex it self it is the fact thta people(and some gays) assume that because you are gay you will do it.
I understand what you mean. You have no obligation to martyr yourself for the cause of "changing society".
I'm lesbian and asexual, so people assume that because I have a girlfriend, I must be into sex, which is wrong. In a way, identifying as asexual while in a relationship tells people that I'm not having sex, and it clarifies this point, and makes real the possibilities I live with (i.e. being asexual yet experiencing romantic attraction). I understand your need to not be someone into anal sex just because you like men, and to have a way to communicate that.
Now, obviously, g0y is a weird word I had never seen in my life, so it doesn't communicate much to me. I also think that you passed unnecessary judgements towards the "gay community", and that the Urban Dictionary definition of g0y did the same. The rejection of "effeminacy" is something I find particularly problematic in said definition. Because, well... rejecting the non-normative "gays" is in fact what very many gay rights groups did, with the effect that the most marginalized LGBT people were even rejected from the movement that should protect them.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Yeah I guess that kind of bad. I know it is far from perfect... But I guess I can clarify that by explaining my ideaabout the reason for homophobia. (Please don't steal my idea since I want to write a paper about it one day... Or do since this is the net I have no control) PS: I also don't agree with this idea. It is just how I perceive humanity. Don't blame the player for explain the rules. Blame the game.
Spoiler: My theory
Show
In my theory the hate society have regarding gays is actually an inherent and unconscious hatred towards women. We hate women. Not conscious but very strongly.
Our Judeo-Christian values and traditions Western society is essentially extremely chauvinist, patriarchal and phallocentric. We learn from a very young age that women are inferior. If a coach want to offend the team he compare their performance with that of little girls. Being a girl is offensive and pejorative.
It is not soemthing we are aware of but it permeates society as whole. Women, men, gays, trans, bi all act like this. In the smallest details.
But where does the hate regarding gays comes in? Well we can trace it back in the Hebrew society where being gay was a crime and sin. But why? Were the Hebrews all evil? No it actually made sense at that time.
They lived in the desert, basically hell on earth! Super hot by day and frezing cold by night. Becuase of that a lot of people died all the time. Especially children. So if a tribe was unable to have many kids that would lead to extinction. That is why the waste of seed in a relationship that whould not generate children was prohibited. And that made sense since it was a matter of survival! (Unlike the big urban and structured societies such as the ancient Greeks and Babylonians societies where being gay was ok if not the norm).
But you know what else is a waste of seed and prohibited at the time? Masturbation! And why masturbation is not so frowned upon and persecuted as gays are?
Because of the second reason our society hates gays. Becuase we live in a patriarchal society. Where we unconsciously perceive men as demigods and women as dirty and inferior objects.
So for a society like that to see a relationship where a men perfect in demigod levels allows to be penetrated and emasculated assuming a girly position of submissive role is a horrible sight. It is a slap in the face of such a system.
That is(besides the proximity with feces) the reason we hate anal sex because it represents a man coming down from his position of demigod to take the position of a woman. Someone who we subconsciously hate.
That is why most people don't find a girl who acts like a boy(not necessarily a lesbians) not as repulsive as a guy acting like a girl(not necessarily gay) because it is okay and expected that a mere mortal want to be as a demigod but not the other way around.
So when a homophobic person see two gays kissing he don't just see it. He sees one man abdicating his postion as a man and that is what makes him feel sick.
So if we could just deconstruct the image of gays = Sodomites a lot of the discrimination whould end. Not all of it... But a big part. Since Straight guys have a propensity to homoeroticism. UFC fights, sports and games demonstrates that. It just need to be in a manly way. Like frottage.
I know all this may sound very discriminative but I don't agree if it. It is just how I persive the homophobia works.
Also @noparlpf it kind of looks like your avatar is staring into my very soul. Kind of creepy ^_^
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
That is some grade-a rationalization mixed with a fair amount of misogyny. I don't buy the rationalization, and I disapprove of the misogyny. And even if true, I wouldn't want to play into it. Hooray all people! Love as best pleases you and your lover, however that may be!
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aberratio ictus
Coidzor - you seem to have taken my question as a slight towards Homosexuality. That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if I wasn't able to convey my intentions in a satisfactory way.
No, I interpreted you as fairly obviously drawing a comparison between people's attitudes towards incest and homosexuality.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
That was a misinterpretation, then. The most I did was compare two specific faulty conclusions, and I didn't even come close to comparing attitudes as a whole. Again, I didn't mean to vex anyone, and I apologise.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
I don't know which is more absurd, Zurvan's theory or the fact he thinks he has any sort of claim to originality over the idea in the face of all the centuries those ideals have been widely held. :smallconfused:
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
Yeah I guess that kind of bad. I know it is far from perfect... But I guess I can clarify that by explaining my ideaabout the reason for homophobia. (Please don't steal my idea since I want to write a paper about it one day... Or do since this is the net I have no control) PS: I also don't agree with this idea. It is just how I perceive humanity. Don't blame the player for explain the rules. Blame the game.
Spoiler: My theory
Show
In my theory the hate society have regarding gays is actually an inherent and unconscious hatred towards women. We hate women. Not conscious but very strongly.
Our Judeo-Christian values and traditions Western society is essentially extremely chauvinist, patriarchal and phallocentric. We learn from a very young age that women are inferior. If a coach want to offend the team he compare their performance with that of little girls. Being a girl is offensive and pejorative.
It is not soemthing we are aware of but it permeates society as whole. Women, men, gays, trans, bi all act like this. In the smallest details.
But where does the hate regarding gays comes in? Well we can trace it back in the Hebrew society where being gay was a crime and sin. But why? Were the Hebrews all evil? No it actually made sense at that time.
They lived in the desert, basically hell on earth! Super hot by day and frezing cold by night. Becuase of that a lot of people died all the time. Especially children. So if a tribe was unable to have many kids that would lead to extinction. That is why the waste of seed in a relationship that whould not generate children was prohibited. And that made sense since it was a matter of survival! (Unlike the big urban and structured societies such as the ancient Greeks and Babylonians societies where being gay was ok if not the norm).
But you know what else is a waste of seed and prohibited at the time? Masturbation! And why masturbation is not so frowned upon and persecuted as gays are?
Because of the second reason our society hates gays. Becuase we live in a patriarchal society. Where we unconsciously perceive men as demigods and women as dirty and inferior objects.
So for a society like that to see a relationship where a men perfect in demigod levels allows to be penetrated and emasculated assuming a girly position of submissive role is a horrible sight. It is a slap in the face of such a system.
That is(besides the proximity with feces) the reason we hate anal sex because it represents a man coming down from his position of demigod to take the position of a woman. Someone who we subconsciously hate.
That is why most people don't find a girl who acts like a boy(not necessarily a lesbians) not as repulsive as a guy acting like a girl(not necessarily gay) because it is okay and expected that a mere mortal want to be as a demigod but not the other way around.
So when a homophobic person see two gays kissing he don't just see it. He sees one man abdicating his postion as a man and that is what makes him feel sick.
So if we could just deconstruct the image of gays = Sodomites a lot of the discrimination whould end. Not all of it... But a big part. Since Straight guys have a propensity to homoeroticism. UFC fights, sports and games demonstrates that. It just need to be in a manly way. Like frottage.
I know all this may sound very discriminative but I don't agree if it. It is just how I persive the homophobia works.
Also @noparlpf it kind of looks like your avatar is staring into my very soul. Kind of creepy ^_^
Without touching all the historical and theological inaccuracies, sorry sugar, none of us can "steal" your idea because it's been around for decades, at least. I, myself, have already written a paper for an assignment on the ancient Greeks (an example of an ancient society that had no problem with sexual and romantic acts between men, including but not limited to buttsecks, AND a very great emphasis on the duty of both men and women to produce offspring). The paper discussed the fact that the ancient Greeks had no concept of "homosexual", but rather sex was about power, and the male citizen had to always play "the man". It didn't matter whether he was sexing up a woman, a slave, or a young Greek man or boy - as long as the adult male citizen was the one doing the penetrating it was a-okay. It was when he started letting someone do it to him that it became an issue, because he was giving up the power that was rightfully his, by "playing the woman". Though even then exactly how much of an issue varied from knowing looks to quiet mockery to full legal punishment, and I would point out that the fact that even in this atmosphere we know that a number of men voluntarily - eagerly - engaged in the act indicates that for a not insignificant portion of people it is a very enjoyable activity.. So yeah, your idea goes right back to the time of the ancient Greeks.
And all of this, still, does absolutely nothing to justify belittling people for their private sexual lives today. What this kind of reminds me of is the "I'm not one of THOSE girls..." thing. It's buying into outdated stereotyples and throwing your peers, the people who should be your allies, to the lions. It's saying "yes society, those behaviours are terriwrongbad and you are right to censure them. But I'm not like them, you can tell because I'm censuring them too", instead of going "well, it's not my thing, but I don't really think it's any of your business or mine what they do".
edit: I would like to add that it is not a bad thing that you've come up with this idea. The phenomenon you have discovered is a real problem and a substantial undertone of a lot of feminist study in particular and gender and sociology study in general. That you have observed it independently and recognised it is an accomplishment. The question now is what you do with this knowledge - do you question, challenge and help dismantle it, or do you buy into, contribute to and help perpetuate it? So far, it looks to me, you're doing the latter.
-
Re: LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zurvan
I also don't agree with this idea. It is just how I perceive humanity. Don't blame the player for explain the rules. Blame the game.
If you're doing nothing but explain the "rules", you're not blaming the game, you're promoting it. Instead, I suggest that you can fight against the "rules", or, at the very least, you can decline to engage in the game at all.
In other words: Instead of saying, "I define myself as a "g0y" because I don't want to be associated with the kind of sex gays have", you could say, "I am gay but that doesn't mean I like the sex acts some people mistakenly associate with that label".
And I fully agree with Serpentine's remarks, she's spot on.