|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 24, 2017 8:08:03 GMT
It used to be GLBT, then lesbians decided they wanted to go first, because they are female. Lesbians also claim themselves as being gay— so what is gay guy then?—they would also get with a hot guy if he was attracted to them—would a genuine gay guy get with a girl?—so would then claim themselves as bisexual. Sounds pretty much like lesbians want the whole darn thing. As for T, well that is not about a sexuality, just gender confusion and genital mutilation. Nice going!
Gay, is a prissy and derisive term for homosexual males and NOT ALL homos are pansified. How about male homosexuals just have their own "exclusive" movement and just be known as HOMOS, and keep lesbians and trannies out. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Aug 29, 2017 14:21:06 GMT
they tag you and bag you and you are sacrificed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 29, 2017 14:53:52 GMT
they tag you and bag you and you are sacrificed. At first I thought you wrote "bang," not "bag." |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 6, 2017 4:38:26 GMT
Bump!
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Feb 11, 2018 16:58:05 GMT
First, I like the fact that we have eschewed unisex and fallen back on the gentleman's custom of "ladies first". It's irony that many of these manhating dykes and sissified males have acknowledged that men and women are different and should be treated differently.
As you said and I agree, gay is a silly name to call us. We've endured centuries of oppression and we are not happy about it. I predict in 20 years the term "gay" for homosexuals will be as effete and politically incorrect as "colored" is for black people.
Well, as "same-sexers" our movements may be different but they are related and allied. It can't be a boys only club. How many gay clubs do you know where it's 100% male besides rough trade bars? There's always a few lesbos, and invariably at least one trannie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 11, 2018 22:42:29 GMT
I think LGBT or LGBTQ is fine as it is. LGBTTQQIAAP is hard to use in normal conversation. It is better to stick with one order. Imagine how perplexing it will look if everyone concerned start rearranging the letters in all the myriad ways possible. The acronym should stand for unity, not one group vying for more attention over the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 11, 2018 23:40:45 GMT
First, I like the fact that we have eschewed unisex and fallen back on the gentleman's custom of "ladies first". It's irony that many of these manhating dykes and sissified males have acknowledged that men and women are different and should be treated differently. As you said and I agree, gay is a silly name to call us. We've endured centuries of oppression and we are not happy about it. I predict in 20 years the term "gay" for homosexuals will be as effete and politically incorrect as "colored" is for black people. Well, as "same-sexers" our movements may be different but they are related and allied. It can't be a boys only club. How many gay clubs do you know where it's 100% male besides rough trade bars? There's always a few lesbos, and invariably at least one trannie. Well, we can all just be homos and gay should also be politically incorrect like f*g! Like you have mentioned, it's way too frivolous a term. If Trans want to stick around, fine, but they DO really need their own movement, instead of being latchys onto those that do appreciate their own gender. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 11, 2018 23:48:53 GMT
I think LGBT or LGBTQ is fine as it is. LGBTTQQIAAP is hard to use in normal conversation. It is better to stick with one order. Imagine how perplexing it will look if everyone concerned start rearranging the letters in all the myriad ways possible. The acronym should stand for unity, not one group vying for more attention over the other. Is not unity then inclusive of straight people? There is really no gay community, it's everywhere and anywhere, just like the straight community and where is that? Sexuality is just sexuality and need not be labelled or tagged. The main point of my thread here though, is that Lesbians in all reality, really belong to at least 3 of the categories, so what does gay really mean? It's "homo" attraction and I don't find anything derogatory about that term, yet it would be straights then claiming that it is. Even bi guys aren't really being bi if they are only with one partner at a time. They would either be homo or hetero, depending on the gender. I feel like the LGBTQ whatever, is also enforcing that those that are homo, to be a part of something they may not want to belong too. It only endorses themselves as being second class to straights. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 13, 2018 4:43:24 GMT
Is not unity then inclusive of straight people? There is really no gay community, it's everywhere and anywhere, just like the straight community and where is that? Sexuality is just sexuality and need not be labelled or tagged. The main point of my thread here though, is that Lesbians in all reality, really belong to at least 3 of the categories, so what does gay really mean? It's "homo" attraction and I don't find anything derogatory about that term, yet it would be straights then claiming that it is. Even bi guys aren't really being bi if they are only with one partner at a time. They would either be homo or hetero, depending on the gender. I feel like the LGBTQ whatever, is also enforcing that those that are homo, to be a part of something they may not want to belong too. It only endorses themselves as being second class to straights. Humanity as a whole should stand as one, you're right about most things you said. But we are not there yet, probably never will. Being part of LGBT does not make you a second class human. But many straights do consider us inferior and falsely believe they are on a higher ground or 'normal'. And straight people do use the word Homo in a derogatory way. So personally I would not adopt that word. But that's just my opinion. As Elrond said, we're scattered, divided, leaderless. The straights don't need a community because they are the majority and their rights are not trampled in the way ours are. When we are fighting for a cause, to let our voices be heard, we need a name. If there's a consensus we can drop all these acronyms and find a new word. Once again, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. I don't know if there's any other solution. I've not given it much thought until this moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 15, 2018 9:47:09 GMT
Is not unity then inclusive of straight people? There is really no gay community, it's everywhere and anywhere, just like the straight community and where is that? Sexuality is just sexuality and need not be labelled or tagged. The main point of my thread here though, is that Lesbians in all reality, really belong to at least 3 of the categories, so what does gay really mean? It's "homo" attraction and I don't find anything derogatory about that term, yet it would be straights then claiming that it is. Even bi guys aren't really being bi if they are only with one partner at a time. They would either be homo or hetero, depending on the gender. I feel like the LGBTQ whatever, is also enforcing that those that are homo, to be a part of something they may not want to belong too. It only endorses themselves as being second class to straights. Humanity as a whole should stand as one, you're right about most things you said. But we are not there yet, probably never will. Being part of LGBT does not make you a second class human. But many straights do consider us inferior and falsely believe they are on a higher ground or 'normal'. And straight people do use the word Homo in a derogatory way. So personally I would not adopt that word. But that's just my opinion. As Elrond said, we're scattered, divided, leaderless. The straights don't need a community because they are the majority and their rights are not trampled in the way ours are. When we are fighting for a cause, to let our voices be heard, we need a name. If there's a consensus we can drop all these acronyms and find a new word. Once again, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. I don't know if there's any other solution. I've not given it much thought until this moment. Straight people only use it in a derogatory way, because the LGBT whatever organization has told them that it is.
I understand your point about needing a name to differentiate, but at the same time, it is dividing ourselves from a straight community that are creating the communities due to the consequence of breeding out of heterosexual activity. They then perpetuate the ignorant thinking that a homosexual person is not as "normal" as they are. We are all their children and some come out homosexual, most come out heterosexual. It's all still an effect of their own cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 15, 2018 15:00:48 GMT
Straight people only use it in a derogatory way, because the LGBT whatever organization has told them that it is.
I understand your point about needing a name to differentiate, but at the same time, it is dividing ourselves from a straight community that are creating the communities due to the consequence of breeding out of heterosexual activity. They then perpetuate the ignorant thinking that a homosexual person is not as "normal" as they are. We are all their children and some come out homosexual, most come out heterosexual. It's all still an effect of their own cause.
I don't know who germinated the idea and started the derogatory name calling. But in the present age, you're probably right in that the gay community decided that calling 'Homo' was not right. There probably were some latent homosexual tendencies in the first heterosexual humans. There's a chance he or she wasn't entirely hetero. There probably was no US and THEM to begin with. So nobody caused it. The effect was more or less already in place.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 15, 2018 23:02:23 GMT
Straight people only use it in a derogatory way, because the LGBT whatever organization has told them that it is.
I understand your point about needing a name to differentiate, but at the same time, it is dividing ourselves from a straight community that are creating the communities due to the consequence of breeding out of heterosexual activity. They then perpetuate the ignorant thinking that a homosexual person is not as "normal" as they are. We are all their children and some come out homosexual, most come out heterosexual. It's all still an effect of their own cause.
I don't know who germinated the idea and started the derogatory name calling. But in the present age, you're probably right in that the gay community decided that calling 'Homo' was not right. There probably were some latent homosexual tendencies in the first heterosexual humans. There's a chance he or she wasn't entirely hetero. There probably was no US and THEM to begin with. So nobody caused it. The effect was more or less already in place. Gay is too prissyfied for me. I am a homo, nothing more or less and 100% superior.  I see much of what humans operate by, is based on human condtioning\construct and what the establishment has wanted from the herd throughout the centuries. Homosexuality was never an issue in ancient Greece. Sex with women was mainly for pro-creation. Yeah, sure, many men like to have sex with women, but "bisexuality" would be more latent in males than most would care or want to admit too. The easier and less stigmatized route gets taken my most. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to the current status quo. This brings me back to my topic on lesbians. Females don't operate on the same sexual sphere or dynamic as males do. I really don't feel that any lesbian is just solely "exclusive" to female attraction. I have known several women who claim they are lesbian, but have gotten with males as well. They are LGB, if one was to buy into this confounded alphabet soup of labeling\tagging. I also feel many of the more butch lesbians, don't really like their femaleness, and would rather be male. This is where the conundrum gets created regarding male homosexuality, because gay guys DO like the gender they are born into and are comfortable with their sex\bodies. If they didn't, they would be Trans, and this is not even a sexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 16, 2018 3:53:44 GMT
Gay is too prissyfied for me. I am a homo, nothing more or less and 100% superior. I see much of what humans operate by, is based on human condtioning\construct and what the establishment has wanted from the herd throughout the centuries. Homosexuality was never an issue in ancient Greece. Sex with women was mainly for pro-creation. Yeah, sure, many men like to have sex with women, but "bisexuality" would be more latent in males than most would care or want to admit too. The easier and less stigmatized route gets taken my most. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to the current status quo. This brings me back to my topic on lesbians. Females don't operate on the same sexual sphere or dynamic as males do. I really don't feel that any lesbian is just solely "exclusive" to female attraction. I have known several women who claim they are lesbian, but have gotten with males as well. They are LGB, if one was to buy into this confounded alphabet soup of labeling\tagging. I also feel many of the more butch lesbians, don't really like their femaleness, and would rather be male. This is where the conundrum gets created regarding male homosexuality, because gay guys DO like the gender they are born into and are comfortable with their sex\bodies. If they didn't, they would be Trans, and this is not even a sexuality. Well, I don't feel superior or proud. To be honest, I don't feel I'm qualified to delve into this subject and reach conclusions about one thing or the other. Well it looks like you're listening, so I must be saying something right. At best, you can call me bicurious. Maybe bisexual, but heavily leaning towards the females. That said, I do feel part of the "community". I've read something, somewhere about ancient Greece. Why can't this callous world learn something from them? Some of the best minds came from ancient Greece. Homosexuality should be seen as a boon rather than a threat in this overpopulated planet teeming with billions. The people of my country don't seem to mind and sees the population which is bursting at the seams as a strength rather than an impairment. I agree that females don't operate on the same sexual sphere as males do. But I don't agree that all lesbians, even if the right opportunity or person came by, would jump into bed with males. And I agree that butches may not be comfortable with their feminine side, but I disagree that ALL of them ultimately long to be male. Further, I believe that the femmes see their butch partners as inherently female. But I'm no expert on these matters.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 16, 2018 4:18:23 GMT
Gay is too prissyfied for me. I am a homo, nothing more or less and 100% superior. I see much of what humans operate by, is based on human condtioning\construct and what the establishment has wanted from the herd throughout the centuries. Homosexuality was never an issue in ancient Greece. Sex with women was mainly for pro-creation. Yeah, sure, many men like to have sex with women, but "bisexuality" would be more latent in males than most would care or want to admit too. The easier and less stigmatized route gets taken my most. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to the current status quo. This brings me back to my topic on lesbians. Females don't operate on the same sexual sphere or dynamic as males do. I really don't feel that any lesbian is just solely "exclusive" to female attraction. I have known several women who claim they are lesbian, but have gotten with males as well. They are LGB, if one was to buy into this confounded alphabet soup of labeling\tagging. I also feel many of the more butch lesbians, don't really like their femaleness, and would rather be male. This is where the conundrum gets created regarding male homosexuality, because gay guys DO like the gender they are born into and are comfortable with their sex\bodies. If they didn't, they would be Trans, and this is not even a sexuality. Well, I don't feel superior or proud. To be honest, I don't feel I'm qualified to delve into this subject and reach conclusions about one thing or the other. Well it looks like you're listening, so I must be saying something right. At best, you can call me bicurious. Maybe bisexual, but heavily leaning towards the females. That said, I do feel part of the "community". I've read something, somewhere about ancient Greece. Why can't this callous world learn something from them? Some of the best minds came from ancient Greece. Homosexuality should be seen as a boon rather than a threat in this overpopulated planet teeming with billions. The people of my country don't seem to mind and sees the population which is bursting at the seams as a strength rather than an impairment. I agree that females don't operate on the same sexual sphere as males do. But I don't agree that all lesbians, even if the right opportunity or person came by, would jump into bed with males. And I agree that butches may not be comfortable with their feminine side, but I disagree that ALL of them ultimately long to be male. Further, I believe that the femmes see their butch partners as inherently female. But I'm no expert on these matters. Well, I do feel superior by being 100% homosexual, because I haven't been able to take some of the same things for granted as straight people do. It can be more about outside looking in for many gay people. We are constantly bombarded with heterosexist and gynocentric propaganda at every turn. If you claim you are "bicurious" and lean more towards females as a sexual partner, you at least have a choice and don't have to pretend like many genuine gay guys have, in a pretense to hide who they are. And if openly accepting "bisexual" men have children, they would be more understanding of their children if they are in touch with their inner-homo. As for pride, well I would say more heterosexuals do the pride thing better than homosexuals, because they tend to be the ones that think they are so "special" and "normal" for being straight, in our confounded and hypocritically drenched society full of double standards. You can do this because you are this, and can have that because you have this, and you must belong to this group, because you don't belong to this construct.  We have no choice but to accept the gender we are born into, some may attempt to change it like T, but that is just becoming a parody of what they really feel they want to be. Ultimately, they are genetically and biologically their birth sex. If a man treats a female right and is attractive enough, regardless of what she labels herself, even if a lesbian, I'm sure she would feel some sort of sexual attraction for him. Men can generally be the more positive and even aggressive ones when it comes to exuding sexuality. It is an animal magnetism that can be hard to resist. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 17, 2018 16:28:21 GMT
Well, I do feel superior by being 100% homosexual, because I haven't been able to take some of the same things for granted as straight people do. It can be more about outside looking in for many gay people. We are constantly bombarded with heterosexist and gynocentric propaganda at every turn. If you claim you are "bicurious" and lean more towards females as a sexual partner, you at least have a choice and don't have to pretend like many genuine gay guys have, in a pretense to hide who they are. And if openly accepting "bisexual" men have children, they would be more understanding of their children if they are in touch with their inner-homo. As for pride, well I would say more heterosexuals do the pride thing better than homosexuals, because they tend to be the ones that think they are so "special" and "normal" for being straight, in our confounded and hypocritically drenched society full of double standards. You can do this because you are this, and can have that because you have this, and you must belong to this group, because you don't belong to this construct. We have no choice but to accept the gender we are born into, some may attempt to change it like T, but that is just becoming a parody of what they really feel they want to be. Ultimately, they are genetically and biologically their birth sex. If a man treats a female right and is attractive enough, regardless of what she labels herself, even if a lesbian, I'm sure she would feel some sort of sexual attraction for him. Men can generally be the more positive and even aggressive ones when it comes to exuding sexuality. It is an animal magnetism that can be hard to resist. I couldn't help but notice how you find it hard to accept the names bicurious and bisexual. If gay is prissyfied (haven't heard that term before), doesn't it worry you that there's a possibility that some mean person could call you Homo in a derisive way? It's a brave decision to accept that word wholeheartedly. I completely agree with the animal magnetism part. Men do possess that quality. But consider this; a gorgeous woman goes to a straight or lesbian bar dressed to kill. Doesn't that exude irresistible sexuality or sexiness? Yes, heterosexual pride is what rules the world. During my younger days, I was so secure in my sexuality and was like "Thank God I'm Straight". |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 17, 2018 22:47:36 GMT
I couldn't help but notice how you find it hard to accept the names bicurious and bisexual. If gay is prissyfied (haven't heard that term before), doesn't it worry you that there's a possibility that some mean person could call you Homo in a derisive way? It's a brave decision to accept that word wholeheartedly. I completely agree with the animal magnetism part. Men do possess that quality. But consider this; a gorgeous woman goes to a straight or lesbian bar dressed to kill. Doesn't that exude irresistible sexuality or sexiness? Yes, heterosexual pride is what rules the world. During my younger days, I was so secure in my sexuality and was like "Thank God I'm Straight". I am not sure of your comment about me not accepting the term "bisexual", I have even commented on bisexual men having children. I like guys that can claim openness to their bisexuality. As for "bicurious", that is more just of a latency\made up thing and you are either bi or you're not. If someone wants to call me "homo" in a derisive way, I couldn't care much about that, that is what I prefer. Gay term can be used in a derisive way too. I'd just call em a "douchb@g breeder" back. I can appreciate the sexuality of women and find it aesthetically pleasing, just not physically sexually attractive, I suppose I can't comment on how sexually irresistible it is for some people. Lesbians would perhaps be looking for the same things straight guys are, and that is a different dynamic altogether, compared to what straight women and gay men are looking for in males. However, a lesbian, already being female, would perhaps be looking for more of an emotional connection, men would first and foremost be looking to get laid. I think most guys who are bi or straight, would feel a little more freedom in themselves, due to being a part of the "accepted" norm, even if girls might think they're creeps.  |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 17, 2018 23:06:01 GMT
lol... lesbians are gay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 18, 2018 0:25:28 GMT
How can they be gay, if they are lesbians?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Horizon on Feb 18, 2018 13:39:45 GMT
I am not sure of your comment about me not accepting the term "bisexual", I have even commented on bisexual men having children. I like guys that can claim openness to their bisexuality. As for "bicurious", that is more just of a latency\made up thing and you are either bi or you're not. If someone wants to call me "homo" in a derisive way, I couldn't care much about that, that is what I prefer. Gay term can be used in a derisive way too. I'd just call em a "douchb@g breeder" back. I can appreciate the sexuality of women and find it aesthetically pleasing, just not physically sexually attractive, I suppose I can't comment on how sexually irresistible it is for some people. Lesbians would perhaps be looking for the same things straight guys are, and that is a different dynamic altogether, compared to what straight women and gay men are looking for in males. However, a lesbian, already being female, would perhaps be looking for more of an emotional connection, men would first and foremost be looking to get laid. I think most guys who are bi or straight, would feel a little more freedom in themselves, due to being a part of the "accepted" norm, even if girls might think they're creeps. Oops! I didn't take into account that part you said about bisexual men being better fathers. When before you said 'sexuality is sexuality' I just thought you didn't care much about terms and labels. Deembastille quipped that lesbians are gay. Some lesbians say "I'm gay" like guys do. Maybe they aren't too comfortable with the term 'lesbian'. Mind you, I'm not talking from personal experience. Maybe we don't need the 'L' or 'Q' and it could just be GBT. I mean, if 'B' and 'G' are inclusive of both men and women, why do we need the 'L'? But I don't think the community would accept that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 18, 2018 17:32:27 GMT
Oops! I didn't take into account that part you said about bisexual men being better fathers. When before you said 'sexuality is sexuality' I just thought you didn't care much about terms and labels. Deembastille quipped that lesbians are gay. Some lesbians say "I'm gay" like guys do. Maybe they aren't too comfortable with the term 'lesbian'. Mind you, I'm not talking from personal experience. Maybe we don't need the 'L' or 'Q' and it could just be GBT. I mean, if 'B' and 'G' are inclusive of both men and women, why do we need the 'L'? But I don't think the community would accept that. Well, at the end of the day, sexuality is just sexuality. Labels and tags are part of the problem. T shouldn't even be a part of it, it's not a sexuality, but a mind disorder. That is part of my whole point about this community thing, there is NO LGBT whatever community, it's all ONE community that many straights choose to compartmentalize others into, because they are not ONE OF US. Quite insidious really! Gay was a term more associated with male homosexuality, due to the frivolous connotation of it. Most gay guys would have been perceived as Mary's when first originated. More degrading heterosexist ignorance. And while stereotypes do exist, it is not the same for everyone and even bisexual men may not want to identify with the gay label. They shouldn't have too. They are both homo and hetero. |
|
