all 43 comments

[–]artetolife 44 insightful - 1 fun44 insightful - 0 fun45 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Smug bisexuals who "discovered their gay side" thinking it works that way for everyone. Askgaybros is overrun with those numpties and they're almost as bad as the Aidens.

[–]ThrowMeAway2879[S] 33 insightful - 1 fun33 insightful - 0 fun34 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Smug bisexuals

And also straight 'queers'. Don't forget those. Waltzing into gay subs and lecturing gay people on how their sexuality works. I remember a AGB thread where someone asked whether people would participate in a MMF threesome and my answer was absolutely not, not even if the woman were clothed and just watching. Cue some straight dude coming in and claiming that's misogynist.

[–]markiemarcus 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh that's outrageous! I mean jeeeez, I wouldn't even participate in a threesome because I'm a total prude and oddly old-fashioned, but the thought of MMF is insane to me.

[–]rockhard288 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of those smug bisexuals always lean heterosexual or just so happen to end up in hetero LTR majority of the time too. I feel gaslighted every time they say that.

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

100% yes

[–]Gearbeta 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Imo "sexuality is fluid" started out good, telling people "it's okay if you want to try something different or you feel attraction to the same sex, you're not a freak" and it morphed into " try shit you don't want to do and have never wanted to do".

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 31 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 0 fun32 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, this is a huge problem. "Sexuality is fluid" is being used as a manipulation tactic to coerce people into doing sexual things they don't actually want.

[–]Gearbeta 29 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 0 fun30 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. I remember when it used to be "no means no" and enthusiastic consent was encouraged(instead of just putting up with garbage sex, how many times have TRAs suggested that to gays and lesbians) and sex positivity was meant to deal with religious based repression. And now all of the things that were supposed to be positive influences have become twisted and are used to attempt to force others into doing what someone else wants them to do. Like on Twitter a while back I saw a screenshot of a guy saying that a woman was antifeminist for not sending him nudes because that wasn't sex positive and meant she was ashamed of her body.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Reminds me of every bad movie from the 80s in which some dude pressured a woman to try a drug / have another drink by shaming her, and then hoped to hook up with her while she was not sober.

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

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would have been better worded as, "It's OK to try new things if you really want to"

[–]a_blue_bird 33 insightful - 1 fun33 insightful - 0 fun34 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

you are "close-minded" and you should really "experiment" more. How did we fucking end up here?

Porn, probably. Having regular sex with a few regular people is considered ''boring'' now, compared to everything that people are seeing in porn.

[–]supersmokio6420 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Even with a few regular people? Fucking hell

[–]a_blue_bird 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Not simultaneously :P

[–]CleverNickName 30 insightful - 2 fun30 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

last century ideas aren't backwards, harmful, and oppressive if you use the freshest neologisms and other basic techniques of low-level psycholinguistics like avoiding "not" and other negative qualifiers.

It's not "homosexuality is wrong" anymore, it's "a fluid sexuality is the best sexuality". It's not "you're not a lesbian, you just haven't had a real man yet" anymore, it's "women have penises, you love women, therefore you love penises, obviously". It's not "why can't you just act like a boy" anymore, it's "you've glanced at something pink once, congratulations, you're a girl, everybody celebrate I SAID EVERYBODY!!!".
I may not have nailed that last one...

[–]fuck_reddit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No you definitely nailed the last one as well. By not using negative words in their ideas, they seem to have fooled everyone into thinking their ideas are beneficial. It's the common trap of assuming "no" is always bad and "yes" is always good without considering consequences.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Just today, I was reading about Tove Jansson (writer of the Moomin books, and Lesbian) and saw that she, at one point had a male fiance, and also wrote to one of her friends a letter saying:

I don’t think I’m entirely lesbian, I have a very clear sense that it can’t be any other woman than Vi, and my relationships with men are unchanged. Improved, maybe. Simpler, happier, less tense. (Tove in a letter to Eva Konikoff dated one week before Christmas, 1946)

(She would have been around 31/32 when she wrote that.)

And I'll be honest, I got excited for a second, thinking I could snatch her up for Team Bi, but reading that whole page thoroughly, there is also this:

She was a changed woman, who had finally “gone over to the ghost side”, as she said, ghost being a common reference for lesbians at the time. Tove and Tuulikki remained lifelong partners, living together for 45 years in adjacent studios[...]

And... IDK, based on this and other things I've read about her, I feel like this was just a lesbian woman slowly figuring out that she's lesbian throughout many long years in a time when there was no guidebook for such things except other fellow LGB people to guide you through the jungles of heteronormativity, if you were lucky, or, just figuring yourself out through your own instincts and blazing your own path, if you were not. Though of course, only she can know for sure what she is. But people might describe her as "sexually fluid" based on that article (here it is, by the way: https://www.moomin.com/en/blog/going-over-to-the-ghost-side-queer-themes-in-tove-janssons-life-and-work-part-3/) and that's annoying.

Her sexuality was never fluid, she was just figuring herself out through "experimenting" (what an annoying word!) with different people. She lived in a heteronormative world and felt pressured to date/marry a dude. It doesn't change the fact that she eventually settled into the label of lesbian once she figured herself out.

But bisexuals trying to reinterpret "sometimes I like dudes more, sometimes I like women more" as fluid is flawed. It's the same as "sometimes I like short people more, sometimes I like redheads more, sometimes I like people with glasses more." That's not fluidity, that's just you seeing something you like and being drawn to it.

People are so fucking confused about all these labels and the more labels they add, the more confused they get.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is they keep trying to take snapshots of each moment in time and analyze it with labels and definitions. Inevitably, these snapshots, cumulatively, when reviewed from subsequent moments, will begin to conflict with one another, until you are my friend who wanted everyone to use different pronouns that changed as often as the weather. Fortunately my friend wised up a bit and defaulted to "they" after a few weeks of trying to be All The Stereotypes™. I hope she finally defaults to "she" again at some point. She's got all the parts and DNA and isn't trying to look otherwise. But, baby steps.

[–]Feather 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think that, in addition to the Kinsey type scale of attraction to one sex or the other, there must also be a "disgust scale."

For instance, I don't think someone is necessarily bisexual if they didn't feel disgust when performing compulsory heterosexuality. If they felt neither disgust nor attraction, I think it is fair to say they are still gay.

A lot of heterosexual women try kissing a woman and discover that they are definitely straight because it does nothing for them. "It was like kissing a pillow. Just... nothing. Nada." No disgust but also no enjoyment of the act.

I believe it can work the same for some homosexual people. A woman sleeps with a man and feels nada, nothing, not even disgust, as though it's just a task like folding laundry; she sleeps with a woman and loves it.

It's fair to call her a lesbian.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, this makes sense. Also for people who are in "Gay for pay" or "lavender marriage" situations. A lot of times they aren't disgusted by being with their customer/spouse, they just feel nothing about it, like hugging a stranger/friend. I think this was the case with Tove, she didn't feel disgusted by the fiance, she just felt neutral about him and liked him as a friend. But she liked women in the "special" way, and that makes all the difference.

[–]BiHorror 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Not gonna comment on that word due to its ties to queer theory BUT if it makes you feel any better: We have Josephine Baker who's bisexual (tho they're trying to rewrite that with the "queer" BS).

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Which word? Fluid or experimenting, or another one? (Just say a, b, or c, so you don't have to write it.) But yeah, I snatched up Evelyn Waugh a few years back, luckily, none of the kweer folk are trying to steal rich white British men for their kweer collections lately, so my snatching went unchallenged.

[–]BiHorror 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ah, none of those, it was heteronormativity. Always seen the QuEeR side always saying it (and queer theory). Lol, that's awesome but shit has that not been a trend with replacing all known LGB with "queer" labeling.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Heteronormative. I just recently started using it, but I don't want to be using any "kweer" words if I can help it, I didn't realize they were tied together! Is there a better word I can use to get across the same meaning? (Like being tricked by society to feel like boy+girl is the only option and there are no other options?) Thanks for giving me the head's up!

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

As far as i know, not really, and the shitty thing is that term had potential but the coiner of it was apart of the queer theory creations. From I know, compulsory heterosexuality could be used (that's what heteronormativity based on) but that's just on your decision since that's coined by Adrienne Rich. Within in essay that was used for radical feminism. Which funny enough, I'm pretty sure why it got dropped out of fashion within queer theory since it's always heteronormativity now.

If you wanna use heteronormativity, you can! Didn't want make you feel like you needed to drop it, I just don't wanna use it myself. Especially since, for me, it makes it like I'm buying into the "queer theory" stuff.

[–]Gearbeta 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah I wouldn't use compulsory heterosexuality either, most of the concepts it talks about are mental gymnastics so straight or bisexual women can dismiss legitimate attraction to men so they can pretend to be lesbians. There's a comp het master doc that says things like "do you have crushes on fictional male characters or male celebrities or otherwise unattainable men?" As one of the things that suggests you're a lesbian. Or having a previous male partner come out as a transwoman as a sign you're a lesbian.

[–]BiHorror 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Shit, I forgot about that... Did that doc happen to be "Am I a lesbian?"

[–]Gearbeta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The one I saw was from r/latebloomerlesbians's side bar. It's just called Comp Het but it looks like that document has been updated recently, don't worry though it's still garbage.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh no, I feel the same as you. I really don't want to use any "queer theory" words. Like I used to call myself "gender non-conforming" and people on the internet are confusing the fuck out of me, some say it's a "queer theory" word, some say it's a "rad-fem" word, and I'm just like... "I just want a short and simple way to get across what lens my life experience comes from when I'm explaining something, but without accidentally dogwhistling that I belong to a specific faction that I don't actually belong to!"

These people really are just ruining all the words.................

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

Yeah, people do ruin words. As for "GNC" it's often associated with Riki Anne Wilchins. Who just so happened to he the founder of the 1st national transgender advocacy group... Who also coined genderqueer. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it's queer theory. But, I do know RadFem got the sex and gender distinction from John Money, and they were the 1st the adopt the concept.

I'm considered "GNC" as well, but didn't use it when I found out who made the terminological disctinction. So, I just went back to being called tomboy.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was everything I used to hear when I was a teenager and still very young by STRAIGHT people. Now I hear it from the community that should give me support 🤣 it's the same old homophobia. It's exactly the same

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

"Sexuality is fluid" keeps getting said in LGBT spaces and if you dare speak up and say that you are exclusively gay and no, your sexuality does not change and has never changed, you are suddenly told - usually in a smug and condescending manner - that you are "close-minded" and you should really "experiment" more.

Reading "experiment" here makes me think of test tubes and Bunsen burners. And lab coats. And Beaker from the Muppets.

Hey, maybe insufferable fluidity-floggers are really inviting us to go all mad scientist on their asses! Here, tell 'em to drink this bubbling, phosphorescent-green stuff (that just dissolved the Erlenmeyer flask it was in) and let's see what happens! And do they wanna help me test my new Death RayTM ?

Muahahahahahaha!

[–]markiemarcus 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Totally agree with your assessment and some of the root causes of the current mess. "Sexuality is fluid" being one of the most nonsensical and outrageous claims. It's the total lack of self-awareness that shocks me; such an argument is the 'intellectual' backbone of gay conversion therapy. I've been bitching about it for quite some time now, how it will eventually be weaponised against us by the religious right too. It was; see the Ann Widdecombe's of the world.

Mind-numbing stuff.

[–]JulienMayfair 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, come on, you're not gay. You just haven't met the right man/woman yet! /s

[–]julesburm1891 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I was a teenager, I thought the “sex is about love” and “you should wait” lectures at church were uptight. Looking back in the midst of all this craziness, I’m starting to realize it’s not a completely terrible idea.

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

Jesus christ why can't we set sexual boundaries anymore??? Consent is important but only if it's politically correct /s.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sexuality is Solid; A piece of wood that burns from society's flame before it ever melts. The idea of fluidity is dangerous in that it can convince some predisposed people that it's possible to change or "fix" one's sexuality through medical treatments or social treatment. Any illusion of fluidity is from asymmetrical life experiences over time that may convince someone that their sexuality is changing, when in reality it's state, while not recognized or acknowledged, is permanent.

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

Some people are even amebic now. They don't walk, for example, they are flowing down the stairs and then they have a problem flowing back up again if there is no special lift adapted to transport them. When they go in a theatre, they must have a box with a special basins iinstead of seats. where special assistants pour them into.

But seriously, there is an intersting YouTube channel Paradox Institute explaining binarity of sexuality.

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

I have heard a couple personal accounts of people who were genuinely uninterested in [insert sex here] for decades, and then something changed. We still don't really know what causes sexual orientation or how it develops. So I'm willing to believe that—for a small handful of people—their sexuality really has fundamentally shifted over the course of their lifetime.

And then bisexuals do make up a sizable portion of the population. And there there are Kinsey 1's and 5's, who might not really experience themselves as bisexual in general, but still sorta are. If people were down to use words like heteroflexible and homoflexible that might help? But in practice people don't really call themselves that.

But yeah. No matter how we got here, it's a real bad situation.

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

"the love of money is the root of all evil..." (1 Timothy 6:10 KJV)

But yeah, I'd say this is a close second.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

< How did we fucking end up here? >

https://youtu.be/4Qs-kxGnx8U?t=60

[–]Treeofthoughts 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was interesting, it had crossed my mind that it was weird that only some identities can be considered alterable.

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

Most sexuality isn't fluid. I know no one in real life who believes theirs is.

I think there may be very rare people who genuinely change from straight to gay or vice versa. But i suspect this is being said because of the greater proportion of bisexual people who feel able to discuss their experiences of sexuality, where in the past they would have been forced into a straight experience of life. It is good that people who are not solely gay/lesbian are able to be open, it is however not true for me, not true for many people, and a deeply irritating thing to be told you are (when you are not!). Also if your not yet comfortable with your exclusive homosexuality it is another option of a stepping stone identifier.