LGBTAitp - Part Thirteen

[Coidzor]

I was just wondering if they fell under the same grouping; no direct comparisons were made.

Well, then, no, because it's about sexuality and gender identity for the most part. There's no real basis for connecting something not of those two things to the main milieu.

[cupkeyk]

Wow, there has been thirteen threads about LGBT and I don't think I have ever posted. But now that I have I don't really know what to say.

Also I am in the Philippines, where transgender(guys who cross dress? not sure) is more common than gay. Also very large stigma on homosexuality in general. Imagine how hard it is to be gay AND a geek?

[Calamity]

Wow, there has been thirteen threads about LGBT and I don't think I have ever posted. But now that I have I don't really know what to say.

Also I am in the Philippines, where transgender(guys who cross dress? not sure) is more common than gay. Also very large stigma on homosexuality in general. Imagine how hard it is to be gay AND a geek?

First off, hi! Doesn't matter how it long it took you to post, it's always nice to see a new face. Anyway I'm the same, I can never think of what to say and usually when I do someone else says it better, but no worries.

Guys who cross dress are called 'tranvestites', 'transgender' is when a person's gender idenity is the opposite of the one one they were biologically born as. I hope I explained that well...

Come to think of it, with so many different trans-somethings that exist, it must be incredibly confusing to non-native speakers sometimes.

[cupkeyk]

Thanks. Also Transvestites as a group frown down on guys who are openly gay but aren't transvestites because they think that they are lying to themselves. Strange huh?

[Calamity]

Yeah that's very odd. Though I've cross-dressed a few times myself, I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a transvestite to be gay.

Sometimes I wonder how these strange ideas come about. Society is a mystery.

[cupkeyk]

Oh I and I am a geek in the closet. Lolz, my gaming group knows i am gay but guys I date don't know I am a gamer. They find it strange. Lolz.

[golentan]

Oh I and I am a geek in the closet. Lolz, my gaming group knows i am gay but guys I date don't know I am a gamer. They find it strange. Lolz.

Hey. Gaymer pride, man. Gaymer pride.

Also welcome. Glomp pile? Glomp pile. *Glomp*

[Kneenibble]

Hello cupkeyk. I too would find it troublesome to be gay in a hot sweaty country full of dark, slim, hairless men. - especially that frowns on it. One of the world's great cruel ironies.

Strangely enough I've met many gay guys from the Philippines where I live -- none of whom cross-dress. The attitude you describe is curious. Are many of the cross-dressers also prostitutes or performers... just out of curiosity?

Calamity, haven't seen your name around here in a blue moon.

[Mina Kobold]

Glomp pile!

*Joins glomp!*

Calamity! Haven't seen you in ages, now I'm all nostalgic about the good old days of ABR.

Which are essentially the current ones with faster posting.

Cupkeyk, those indeed sounds weird. I'm pretty sure you don't have to be gay to be a transvestite so going the other way ought to hit something on the logic highway.

Probably an Elk of Irrational Arguments, those have appeared a lot lately.

[rayne_dragon]

Yes, it does.
I was just exemplifying why I consider myself bi, because I fit everyone in the two genders.
Even if a person were to change his/her gender identity by hour, I'd still fit him/her in the two categories, choosing the most appropriate one for his/her current gender identity.

What about someone who identifies as "both and neither" at the same time?

Yeah, I know I'm being difficult and I don't want to be - but at the same time I can't just say I'm one or the other and not feel like a liar or that people should hate me because I'm hiding something from them.

I'm more curious if there's any way to announce it then, if that's how it usually goes with the whole announcing being pan deliberately when around trans individuals, for it not to be interpreted as announcing interest.

I mean, it's complained about that people think pan individuals are insatiable and after anything that moves, but then you reveal that you purposefully reveal you're pan to any trans individual to "make them feel comfortable," but that only matters to them if there's to be any pursuit, so in the context it basically becomes either A. asking them to pursue or B. informing them that they will be pursued by you.

I don't believe that I've ever complained about people presuming that I'm "insatiable and after anything that moves." I also had specified intersex and genderqueer moreso than trans and that I would correct somone who misidentified my sexuality in that situation rather than announce it completely at random. I will usually identify as bi when I feel the need to give a simpler answer and pan when I am willing to explain it (which is probably more often than not). It's not like I use "hi, I'm pansexual" as a pickup line as you seemed to have misconstrued from my example - I identify as pan even without the presence of someone who I think it might matter to because sometimes it is surprising to find out that someone who you thought had a strong gender identity is a little more in-between than they usually like to admit.

And if you're comparing trans individuals to otherkin, that's just offensive.

I'm a little unclear on exactly how or why that is offensive.

[cupkeyk]

Yeah, the mainstream concept of "gay" is the transexual entertainer. And unfortunately, our many beach resorts are also sex tourism hubs including those with a tranny fetish.

If you'd meet a Filipino overseas, its very likely that they are educated and only a minority of Filipinos finish highschool. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Why would be harder to be gay in a hot, sweaty country full of dark, slim hairless men?

[golentan]

Yeah, the mainstream concept of "gay" is the transexual entertainer. And unfortunately, our many beach resorts are also sex tourism hubs including those with a tranny fetish.

If you'd meet a Filipino overseas, its very likely that they are educated and only a minority of Filipinos finish highschool. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Why would be harder to be gay in a hot, sweaty country full of dark, slim hairless men?

I think he was implying that it would come up more often (Pun intended) and so make social situations harder (pun intended). No?

We could erect a monument (now I'm just stretching it(oh goodness me that came out even worse)) to kneenibble's ability to flirt and imply sexual attraction to people he's never met. So he's probably just hitting on you.

[Worira]

Technically, I think he's hitting on your entire country.

[Serpentine]

He could probably pull it off (boo-yeah).

[cupkeyk]

I've dated a Canadian once. In Shanghai.

But yeah, Filipinos need only the flimsiest of reasons to take of their clothes in public; given the weather and the fact that since we are an archipelago, taking a quick dip in the river or the sea always sounds like a good idea.

Please tell me if its not allowed but in case its not, I am rolling_in_the_deep and adndict in PR.

[Calamity]

@Kneenibble and @Keveak:

Yeah... it's been a while. Apparently it's much harder to be active when you're at Uni, for me at least. According to a book I read, this town is the "gay capital" of Wales, though the existence of Swansea and Cardiff give me my doubts. I don't know if this applies to anyone on this thread but I would highly recommend if you're going to university soon joining the LGBT+ society there, because it was probably the best decision I ever made.

I can't go on holiday to hot places anymore. Too many guys, too little clothes. Drives me mad. Actually my last stay in Lanzarote was what made me realise I was into guys, for similar reasons.

[cupkeyk]

Aaah, I guess we develop some resistance to it then. Hmmmn

[Kajhera]

I don't know if this applies, but story/conversation/thing I did sort of applies here. I am mostly posting this (please don't hurt me, great-mods of yore, it isn't directly an advertisement [feel no obligation to read the rest of my stuff, most is crap], and it has a lot to do with LGBT stuff) because A) it seems to deal with even more non-standard sexualities or sexual attraction and stuff, and B) I want to hear some sort of conversation that might stem from it, mostly because none of my friends IRL ever... ever... ever talk about it, and I feel really frustrated because of this.

[Note:] The characters swear a lot, and I flagged it as such, but I am letting anyone who doesn't like to read swearing or a lot of swearing know.

If this isn't appropriate, because it is (I suppose? Dunno how this kind of stuff works) technically advertising (even though it is on a topic definitely related to this thread), feel free to tell me, and I will remove it.

Notsure if I should reply to that here or there - there, it's a piece of writing; here, you want to continue/start a new conversation.

Regarding necrophilia, consent absolutely still applies. I mean, it does for organ donation. Without consent it's defiling a grave.

As for other things... it's good to think quite carefully about whether something is or is not harmful to others on this good Earth. I have a zoophile friend, who would never engage in ... things because he loves and respects animals and very much does not want to cause harm to them. I suppose the question to answer is 'is it really harmless'.

[cycoris]

I don't know if this applies, but story/conversation/thing I did sort of applies here. I am mostly posting this (please don't hurt me, great-mods of yore, it isn't directly an advertisement [feel no obligation to read the rest of my stuff, most is crap], and it has a lot to do with LGBT stuff) because A) it seems to deal with even more non-standard sexualities or sexual attraction and stuff, and B) I want to hear some sort of conversation that might stem from it, mostly because none of my friends IRL ever... ever... ever talk about it, and I feel really frustrated because of this.

[Note:] The characters swear a lot, and I flagged it as such, but I am letting anyone who doesn't like to read swearing or a lot of swearing know.

If this isn't appropriate, because it is (I suppose? Dunno how this kind of stuff works) technically advertising (even though it is on a topic definitely related to this thread), feel free to tell me, and I will remove it.

Thoughts... are likely to not be too coherent, but I'll try.

My completely unfounded pulled-it-out-of-my-butt hypothesis is that there are people who believe there is meaning inherent in the act of having sex (provided you're old enough, attractive enough, heterosexual enough, monogamous enough, whatever norms happen to be present in that culture), and then there are people who believe that sex has whatever meaning we attach to it.

I think historically that belief #1 has been encouraged by the hegemony, thus leading to the idea that sex (and its inherent meaning) could/should only be shared between two people who could appreciate it, or who could use it to have bebbez, or who promised to not share the sex (and meaning) with other people, and this got incorporated into the idea that the only "moral" way to have sex was if it was between a wed man and woman (with man and woman defined as above a certain age and cisgender) who were trying to make bebbez.

The rise of postmodernism and social constructionism, the increasing availability and effectiveness of birth control, and the growing realisation that sexy stuff is...you know, fun and not inherently harmful if done relatively safely and with respect to the rights of involved parties (oh no, not using biased language at all...) has lead to a growing movement of questioning previously held ideas about the ethics of sexual activity, with more emphasis being placed on what rights involved parties have and how best to preserve those rights.

[Lix Lorn]

And if you're comparing trans individuals to otherkin, that's just offensive.

...not really? Although calling it offensive is offensive to one of those two groups.

Also, (joins glomp pile)
Hihihihi new person! ^^

[SMEE]

What about someone who identifies as "both and neither" at the same time?

Yeah, I know I'm being difficult and I don't want to be - but at the same time I can't just say I'm one or the other and not feel like a liar or that people should hate me because I'm hiding something from them.

Depending on my relationship with said person, it would be either "my lover", "my love", "my friend", "that awesome person" or other gender neutral variants.

[Heliomance]

Thoughts... are likely to not be too coherent, but I'll try.

My completely unfounded pulled-it-out-of-my-butt hypothesis is that there are people who believe there is meaning inherent in the act of having sex (provided you're old enough, attractive enough, heterosexual enough, monogamous enough, whatever norms happen to be present in that culture), and then there are people who believe that sex has whatever meaning we attach to it.

I think historically that belief #1 has been encouraged by the hegemony, thus leading to the idea that sex (and its inherent meaning) could/should only be shared between two people who could appreciate it, or who could use it to have bebbez, or who promised to not share the sex (and meaning) with other people, and this got incorporated into the idea that the only "moral" way to have sex was if it was between a wed man and woman (with man and woman defined as above a certain age and cisgender) who were trying to make bebbez.

The rise of postmodernism and social constructionism, the increasing availability and effectiveness of birth control, and the growing realisation that sexy stuff is...you know, fun and not inherently harmful if done relatively safely and with respect to the rights of involved parties (oh no, not using biased language at all...) has lead to a growing movement of questioning previously held ideas about the ethics of sexual activity, with more emphasis being placed on what rights involved parties have and how best to preserve those rights.

I'm a weird mix of the attitudes there. I was brought up to believe that there's meaning inherent in sex, yadda yadda, but I'm going through a big questioning my faith thing at the moment. I seem to have kept the whole "sex is something special" attitude though - or rather, sex should be something special. It's very easy to strip the meaning out of sex, to make it a purely physical thing, and in my opinion, this is a crying shame. Whatever I eventually decide about my faith, I'm sticking to not having sex until I'm pretty certain that I've found somebody I want to spend the rest of my life with.

In my mind, making love is infinitely better than having sex, and making love to someone really does make a strong connection, you give part of yourself to the other person, you're totally open and exposed (and not just in the literal sense!) That's a part of yourself that in some ways, you'll never get back, so I don't want to share it with more than one person. Casual sex, to me, moral judgements aside, seems like a waste.

[Mina Kobold]

But yeah, Filipinos need only the flimsiest of reasons to take of their clothes in public; given the weather and the fact that since we are an archipelago, taking a quick dip in the river or the sea always sounds like a good idea.

Same with Danes, it's in fact a popular hobby to winter bathe naked. In the sea. That was frozen over.

The stripping thing thankfully only happens on-stage and on the beach.

Thoughts... are likely to not be too coherent, but I'll try.

My completely unfounded pulled-it-out-of-my-butt hypothesis is that there are people who believe there is meaning inherent in the act of having sex (provided you're old enough, attractive enough, heterosexual enough, monogamous enough, whatever norms happen to be present in that culture), and then there are people who believe that sex has whatever meaning we attach to it.

I think historically that belief #1 has been encouraged by the hegemony, thus leading to the idea that sex (and its inherent meaning) could/should only be shared between two people who could appreciate it, or who could use it to have bebbez, or who promised to not share the sex (and meaning) with other people, and this got incorporated into the idea that the only "moral" way to have sex was if it was between a wed man and woman (with man and woman defined as above a certain age and cisgender) who were trying to make bebbez.

The rise of postmodernism and social constructionism, the increasing availability and effectiveness of birth control, and the growing realisation that sexy stuff is...you know, fun and not inherently harmful if done relatively safely and with respect to the rights of involved parties (oh no, not using biased language at all...) has lead to a growing movement of questioning previously held ideas about the ethics of sexual activity, with more emphasis being placed on what rights involved parties have and how best to preserve those rights.

Personally I think it comes from instincts telling humans to make sure their genetic material is continued and that they have a reliably way to get that.

Funnily, that means about twenty mates for lions but only one for humans. Insecure species much?

Personally I don't mind people being Monogamous or Polygamous (except those that think they're immune to HIV for some reason) as long as they don't rub it in my face. Same goes for eaters of Lobster or tarantuella, or I will throw turkey at you! >_<

[unosarta]

Thoughts... are likely to not be too coherent, but I'll try.

My completely unfounded pulled-it-out-of-my-butt hypothesis is that there are people who believe there is meaning inherent in the act of having sex (provided you're old enough, attractive enough, heterosexual enough, monogamous enough, whatever norms happen to be present in that culture), and then there are people who believe that sex has whatever meaning we attach to it.

Thank you thank you thank you for responding. Normally, no one I ever try to have this conversation with responds. Thank you guys.

I wonder what that inherent meaning behind sex is, that people believe in? I mean, of course it changes depending on cultures and peoples, but I don't think I have ever really heard of what such an inherent meaning would be, although maybe I am just not thinking about it.

I think historically that belief #1 has been encouraged by the hegemony, thus leading to the idea that sex (and its inherent meaning) could/should only be shared between two people who could appreciate it, or who could use it to have bebbez, or who promised to not share the sex (and meaning) with other people, and this got incorporated into the idea that the only "moral" way to have sex was if it was between a wed man and woman (with man and woman defined as above a certain age and cisgender) who were trying to make bebbez.

This is a good point. This need for relations between men and women likely being a need to progress the species.

The rise of postmodernism and social constructionism, the increasing availability and effectiveness of birth control, and the growing realization that sexy stuff is...you know, fun and not inherently harmful if done relatively safely and with respect to the rights of involved parties (oh no, not using biased language at all...) has lead to a growing movement of questioning previously held ideas about the ethics of sexual activity, with more emphasis being placed on what rights involved parties have and how best to preserve those rights.

This is another interesting idea.

Notsure if I should reply to that here or there - there, it's a piece of writing; here, you want to continue/start a new conversation.

Here, probably, unless the mods don't want us to (which I totally understand from their position). I mostly want the conversation, I don't really care about commentary on the writing itself.

Regarding necrophilia, consent absolutely still applies. I mean, it does for organ donation. Without consent it's defiling a grave.

I have to wonder about the methods if one is actively defiling a grave. However, even then, it is still considered wrong even if consent is acquired from the person (presumably before their death), from a community standpoint.

You do bring up an interesting point about organ donation.

As for other things... it's good to think quite carefully about whether something is or is not harmful to others on this good Earth. I have a zoophile friend, who would never engage in ... things because he loves and respects animals and very much does not want to cause harm to them. I suppose the question to answer is 'is it really harmless'.

I can hardly think about how Necrophilia would be harming, from a conventional standpoint. Or even any standpoint, really. Can you explain this to me? Is it harming their memory? Except that a body is just a body after death; the person isn't there anyway. I don't know. I can understand how people's beliefs would say that that is wrong, and I guess I am fine with that. But, like I mentioned in the story/narrative/thing, that isn't my main problem. My main problem is that people ostracize necrophiliacs simply because of what they are attracted to. I guess.

I honestly just don't think I have had this conversation enough to really think about the topic, part of why I wanted to ask you guys.

[bluewind95]

I wonder what that inherent meaning behind sex is, that people believe in? I mean, of course it changes depending on cultures and peoples, but I don't think I have ever really heard of what such an inherent meaning would be, although maybe I am just not thinking about it.

At least personally... it's something about very deep trust. I mean... you're very much vulnerable. You're kind of sharing all of you. I think it's best reserved for someone you trust a LOT.

[Serpentine]

Awwww.
Awwww.

[SMEE]

I strongly suggest that the discussion about necrophilia should be ceased.

[golentan]

So. Uh, on the earlier subject of dragon age anyone see this? Be warned, it's in yahtzee's normal acerbic horribly politically incorrect style, but I thought it raised some nice points nonetheless.

[Blisstake]

(Derp servers)

[Blisstake]

He's a lot more open minded than he seems to be in the videos. Although I find it funny that he's going into such detail over a game he didn't seem to like.