ColonizationThis can’t be real, I really hope it’s a joke

submitted by letal_22 from imgur.com

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SeasideLimbs 27 insightful - 5 fun27 insightful - 4 fun28 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

I like how fucking several people at the same time is the same thing as feeling attracted to both genders.

[–]spicyramen 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lumping in bi with poly here is enough to make me apoplectic. like isn't one of the most bullshit stereotypes about bi people that they're promiscuous or nonmonogamous?? and this like??? reinforces that shit????

[–]quickbeam 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am poly and have never liked this tendency of some people to include polyamory in the alphabet. I do feel intrinsically polyamorous, but it's clearly a different issue with different concerns and non-monogamy encompasses a lot of different groups all on its own.

[–]les4leshomonormative 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Cutie-pal" feels like such an infantilizing way to refer to a community. Even ignoring everything else about this, I'm just insulted.

[–]ElectricSheepSuperBi 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

One guess which letter came up with this infantile horse shit

[–]BiHorror 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Reminds me of when trans men call themselves "trans boys" and vice versa for trans women.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 18 insightful - 7 fun18 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 7 fun -  (5 children)

As a B, I feel totally fine being excluded from this one. Polyamory/Pansexuals can have it all.

[–]8bitgay 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They just need to take the L out, make it QTIPA+. And then it's done, let them be with their QTIPA+ community and we with our LGB community.

I also find it funny that even though you're including basically everything in the acronym you still got that + in the end. Gotta make sure that the straight people don't feel left out!

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I think they want to keep the L because so many of the male Trans wish to identify as L's to earn those sweet, juicy Double-Queer points.

What they could do is drop the L and call themselves AQTPI+ (A cutie pie)

why am I giving them shitty ideas???

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Leave the I out. Us intersex people don't want to deal with this horseshit either. Our MEDICAL CONDITIONS are not accessories or "identities"

[–]BiHorror 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Is need to remove themselves as well but meh.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

have to agree, who would ever want to be associated with this?

[–]psufanof2631 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This sums it up- they took advantage of us, made everything all about them, and then the LGB became an afterthought in their world. What a crock.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Why they added Lesbians without our consent? And why they not added Gays and Bisexuals? They don't like LGBTQ+ because TQ is last, and they want TQ to be first now, to center on them?

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a psychic. The P is really for pedosexual. Let's not pretend that's not where it's headed.

[–]jiljol 9 insightful - 9 fun9 insightful - 8 fun10 insightful - 9 fun -  (6 children)

It's funny seeing people (OP included) in the comments justifying the inclusion of polyamory. They are saying that, since polyamorous people are "marginalized" by mainstream society, they belong in the oppression alphabet soup. Cool, then let's add an "F" for the foot fetishists. How about an "AB" for Adult Babies while you're at it?

[–]DimDroog 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

F for Furries.

[–]quickbeam 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

There are honestly some polyamorous people for whom being poly is pretty intrinsic. I'm one of them. It's also not on the level of a fetish or primarily sexual for me. I don't try to insert that identity into the alphabet or LGB spaces, but there are people in the poly community with rights concerns. Poly people who have several committed long-term partners with whom they raise children can be fired from jobs, discriminated against by landlords, or have their child custody threatened despite offering a safe home. It doesn't rise to the same level as LGB rights, but it also isn't very sensible or justifiable to fire somebody for the mere fact of having more sexual/romantic partners than the standard. Especially when there's so much cheating within ostensibly monogamous relationships.

[–]jiljol 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Polyamory is ultimately a lifestyle and sexual choice. Are there challenges associated with it? Sure, just like with many other lifestyle and sexual choices (furries, adult babies, etc). Should the law be amended to confer micro-rights to every single lifestyle choice on Earth? That's gonna be a legal minefield, particularly when you are dealing with multi-partner arrangements. In the hypothetical event that polyamorous people receive marriage rights, what happens if one partner falls ill and medical decisions need to be made? How can you determine custody arrangements in a polyamorous relationship with say, 10+ co-parents? In the event that one or multiple partners file for divorce, how should assets be split? Typically the law distinguishes between assets accrued before and after two parties are married, but what happens when at least one of the partners seeking a divorce was brought into the fold at a later time?

Not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these cases of polyamorous people being fired, evicted and losing their children. The closest I can find in terms of employment is a case in Brisbane, Australia, where a female counselor was fired by her employers, the Catholic Church. Upon closer inspection, it turns out the woman was posting on polyamorous websites, advertising herself as a "poly-friendly" counselor working for the Catholic Church. Obviously she was immediately fired for violating their code of conduct, and a judge eventually ruled against her. I have nothing against polyamory and I feel that nobody, even if theoretically speaking, should be discriminated against based on what they choose to do with their lives (as long as it's within the boundaries of the law). On the other hand, surely you must see all the legal hurdles faced by polyamory that extend beyond simple arbitrary discrimination?

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Sheikhs are polyamory and have dozens of wives, and they have no problems in their countries. But LGB people are executed by law there. And laws for polyamory there are simple - man is always right.

[–]quickbeam 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's not really a lifestyle and sexual choice for me, though. From my early childhood I've had crushes or been in love with more than one person at the same time. I thought I was broken because we live in a society that basically venerates monogamy as the only moral option. When I found out polyamory existed it was a big "aha" moment for me. Again, I don't think it's at the same level as sexual orientation, and there is a big umbrella of non-monogamy which does encompass many people for whom it may be a lifestyle or sexual choice, but there are people who identify as polyamorous where their lovers are their family. They would like to be married to more than one person. A lot of us are women married to feminists.

In terms of discrimination - if you google polyamory and custody you can find a number of articles about custody battles with polyamory. I don't have kids so this thankfully isn't an issue for me. In terms of employment, it's more that polyamorous people keep things hidden on purpose because they assume they'd be subject to firing especially in conservative areas of the country. In Seattle it may be no big deal, but that's not true everywhere. In terms of housing there are often clauses in rentals that prohibit more than 2 non-related adults to cohabitate. So I could live with my partner and my sibling, but I couldn't live with two partners. I could live with my partner and 4 kids but not two partners because I can't be legally related to more than one romantic interest.

In terms of legality, you'd probably need to make law tailored to polyamorous people - but this could be as simple as you add a clause where polyamorous people must write up legal documents assigning ownership/wills/custody as part of having their relationships legally recognized. You could also still limit who counts as dependents on taxes or insurance documents.

It's kind of sad to see a lot of assumptions made about polyamorous people. There are a lot of people out there using the label to do shitty things which aren't really polyamorous. But there are a lot of just really normal, committed, ethical poly people out there too just trying to enjoy their lives and love more than one person romantically or sexually at the same time. We're so boring you probably know some of us already.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

i followed the link and found this

"Unicorn March is all about support, pride, and celebration, for everyone who falls through the cracks of the LGBTQIPA+ community. All of us with intersecting oppressions, and everyone who doesn’t fit into those neat, understandable binary models that get more attention and advocacy"

Every letter of the alphabet but apparently there are people falling through the cracks

[–]DimDroog 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Where the hell is my letter as a straight person?!

All kidding aside, this is insane.

I guess being a same sex attracted isn't exciting enough.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's soo 2000s. You're not a somebody unless you identify as at least 3 genders that most people will have to look up the definition for.

[–]les4leshomonormative 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"falling through the cracks" just referring to not gay

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

wow i hate unicorns even more now, those evil quirky horses ruin everything

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So they are taking my lessons from https://i.imgur.com/TPKWLZJ.png

Sadly they are trying to add Lesbians there for no reason at all. Lesbianism is exclusionarry, so they should replace it with T for Transbian instead!

[–]mi_stmi_llitia 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh. Helllll. No.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i hope they take the l out so we can keep lgb to ourselves, i won't even be mad if this becomes a new acronym because then we can keep them far away from us.

[–]CleverNickName 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Funny world where the straights who've never heard of gender identities are more accepting of normal homosexual people than The Acronym™ is.

At the same time, they're really close to dropping the LGB. Go Cutiepa's, you have my full support to fuck off.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's no joke. The real joke is letting in the Trojan Horse full of these people to hijack the LGB.