LGB ErasureStop bringing sex to a discussion about sexuality!

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've touched on this before; That maybe some of these people are actually quite "conservative" about sex. They are uncomfortable with any concrete discussions of the reality it is. Especially same-sex attraction. The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced). So they use/make up countless gendery terms to put as much of a buffer between themselves and raw, unfiltered sex talk. It's a reaction to their peers almost requiring an open-sharing attitude to a subject they may not naturally be very open about.

Fellow student, you're progressive like us and presumably not a close-minded puritan. What do you feel about -insert sex characteristic-?

Um... Hearts not Parts! Love is Love!

Jolly Good!

Phew😌

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

The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced)

Very interesting theory, and it makes sense.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've touched on this before; That maybe some of these people are actually quite "conservative" about sex. They are uncomfortable with any concrete discussions of the reality it is. Especially same-sex attraction. The problem is that they are usual very "liberal" in other ways and young so being squeamish about sex is not consistent at all with the expectations of their political alignment and demographic(it makes them look uptight and/or inexperienced).

Co-signed. And yet... I think that there's nothing too unusual about this, really; being sexually-insecure (about whether one is attractive enough, experienced enough, uninhibited enough, etc.), at least to some degree, is pretty much a "join the club!" kind of thing. So a lot of people are gonna feel this way. Especially the nerdy, the non-neurotypical, the mentally ill... and the young (being conflicted about sexuality seems just as much a part of adolescence as horniness-- yeah, there's lust, but there's also confusion, squeamishness, and fear a-plenty). But what with the dumbed-down form of "sex-pozi" now a liberal shibboleth, progressives not only can't say that sex ever makes them uncomfortable, they can hardly even THINK it. Because having anything less than a no-boundaries libido is practically heresy at this point.

And, I mean... WHO can meet THAT standard? Being the very embodiment of uninhibited slutdom? It seems set up to make everyone feel like a prude! Even if they just have average levels of self-consciousness, self-doubt, and (dare I say it) modesty.

So they use/make up countless gendery terms to put as much of a buffer between themselves and raw, unfiltered sex talk.

Perfectly-put! "Gendery terms" (good one!) as... insulation. A way of ostensibly talking about sex... without actually talking about sex. AKA plausible deniability! (Though YMMV on the "plausible" part.)

I suspect that this whole mess may also be contributing to the "trans" craze in a few more ways:

  • "Thou Shalt Be Sexually Unconstrained" = sexual orientations are a no-no, since they're as much about who you AREN'T attracted to as who you are. Goes double for homosexuality, because it's: 1.] exclusive (rules out the opposite sex); and 2.] "supposed" to be all about unbridled, wanton, let-yer-freak-flag-fly licentiousness (at least in wokesters' eyes), so how DARE gay people ever say "no"???!!! IT'S UNNATURAL I TELL YOU
  • Terror of being a prude disables liberals' pervert-alarm, so they can no longer tell when something (or someone) is creepy. Explains their embrace not only of fetishistically-motivated transgenderism, but also assorted WTF-ery such as "drag kids", drag queen story hour, etc.

Fellow student, you're progressive like us and presumably not a close-minded puritan. What do you feel about -insert sex characteristic-?

Um... Hearts not Parts! Love is Love!

Jolly Good!

Phew😌

LOL crisis (i.e., having to-- horrors!-- discuss GRODY GROWN-UP STUFF) averted! Carrie's mom, Margaret "Dirtypillows" White, would approve! Next up: "correcting" med school curicula to teach that babies are brought by the stork.

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

And, I mean... WHO can meet THAT standard? Being the very embodiment of uninhibited slutdom? It seems set up to make everyone feel like a prude! Even if they just have average levels of self-consciousness, self-doubt, and (dare I say it) modesty.

Average levels of self-consciousness fall in the middle of the spectrum, and since some of the moral(two sides of the same coin really) enforcers on the extremes are very dichotomous in their thought processes, any sexual expression(or lack therof) deemed more conservative then their ideal is dogmatic behavior of the "religious right", instead of personal choice. It's like they have their very own custom kind of overton window that they in their ideological bubble, think is standard.

Perfectly-put! "Gendery terms" (good one!) as... insulation. A way of ostensibly talking about sex... without actually talking about sex. AKA plausible deniability! (Though YMMV on the "plausible" part.)

I also like to think of it as throwing out bright hot, colourful flares that only appear to be about sex to draw off the heat-seeking questions away from their actual sex life as they fly away to the safe-space of subjects about gender expression(blue shirt or pink?) instead of ever talking about sexual attraction.

"Thou Shalt Be Sexually Unconstrained" = sexual orientations are a no-no, since they're as much about who you AREN'T attracted to as who you are. Goes double for homosexuality, because it's: 1.] exclusive (rules out the opposite sex); and 2.] "supposed" to be all about unbridled, wanton, let-yer-freak-flag-fly licentiousness (at least in wokesters' eyes), so how DARE gay people ever say "no"???!!! IT'S UNNATURAL I TELL YOU

It's like if people think they're "tolerant" or "accepting" of minority sexualities then these minorities practically owe it to them to conform to their stereotypes and figuratively dance like a monkey for them. And the fact is, a lot of lgb do this in order to be accepted by the mainstream. And this just confirms their bias that it's fine to expect and even demand that same-sex attracted people to behave this stereotyped way, especially homosexuals. There really is an air of "These sexualities are made-up and ours is the true real sexuality" about it all.

Terror of being a prude disables liberals' pervert-alarm, so they can no longer tell when something (or someone) is creepy. Explains their embrace not only of fetishistically-motivated transgenderism, but also assorted WTF-ery such as "drag kids", drag queen story hour, etc.

The dedication to open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. Neither necessarily good or bad, but is synonymous with "good" among liberals, so it is simultaneously a liberal's greatest strength and weakness depending on the situation they are dealing with. If you are dealing with entrenched, old-fashioned thinking with no basis in reality, then it's good. But when it comes to this TQ stuff, it's been mostly harmful with few redeeming consequences.