all 81 comments

[–]TumbleweedFireflies🍷 your ol' drunk mod[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (2 children)

HEY! SEALIONS!

Go away.

This isn't about forcing bisexuals to define themselves to your whims and understanding, nor do any of us particularly care what you think about OP's personal views elsewhere.

This post is for bisexuals - who are also a part of this sub and supporting your sexuality, remember? - asserting themselves and their frustration with what's happening to them too.

If you aren't willing to offer support and just want to play Oppression Olympics, take it somewhere else.

[–]BipassxxFebfem 38 insightful - 1 fun38 insightful - 0 fun39 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I've seen this many times, to "leave LG alone and just ask bisexuals to fuck them". As we are some garbage dump that will fuck anything that walks.

I like the NATURAL male and female form. I find a "woman with a penis/man with a vagina" that is disgusting.

It pisses me off so much that along with being HATED by LG/S/TQ+ ppl, we are also expected to slut around for them at will.

I honestly agree. If you are attracted to the mixed-sex characteristics of transgenders, it's a fetish. It's not a normal body, its a chemically and surgically altered bodies to mimic the opposite sex. "Neovaginas" and "neophalluses" are man-made monstrosities and insulting mockery of the natal parts they attempt to mimic. Anyone who is attracted to those artificial genitalia has a fetish.

[–]Chunkeeguy 7 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

I am reliably assured by our 14 year old Alphabet Masters that neo vaginas and phalloplasties are completely indistinguishable from the real thing, so the only reason you can ever have for rejecting them is blatant transphobia.

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

If you are attracted to the mixed-sex characteristics of transgenders, it's a fetish. It's not a normal body

THIS a billion times over. "You're bi, so you don't care!" Like hell I don't care! Self-made freaks are in a category of their own. What happened to the SUPER movement?

Bisexual people fully appreciate the male form and the female form. Only a fetishist wants some mix-and-match of artificial parts on the opposite sex.

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

The "super sexuality" movement was beaten to oblivion before it even really set foot. It threw all of their taking points and reasonings right back in their face and they couldn't handle it. They couldn't handle that people don't want to fuck them. They banned hashtags, banned Reddit groups, banned accounts. People mass reported anyone calling themselves super. And swept under the rug never to be mentioned again.

You are right. They are freaks. It's fucking unnatural AF to castrate yourself, cut off your dick invert it and say it's a real vagina. No sane person takes arm skin, roll it up and sew it onto their vulva, calling it a penis.

It's utterly horrifying. No sane person would be attracted to these Frankenstein experiments unless it's a fetish.

Bisexual people already deal with enough from monosexuals, now we have to be sex slaves to transgenders? Fuck right off. The trans can fuck each other cause no one wants that abomination. Truth hurts. Too fucking bad.

I can't wait for the day transgenderism is exposed for what it is

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

Standing ovation!!!

[–]julesburm1891 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People casually characterizing bi people as dumping grounds or easy says more about them than it does bi people.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The simple fact that you are expected to date a specific person just because you are bisexual is absurd. You have the right to say no, don’t let some asshole take it away from you.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I thought the idea of pan was for bisexuals who include trans people in their dating pool?

[–]DiveBarDiva 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think that was the original intent of them creating “pan” but then that would mean “bisexual” was transphobic and you aren’t allowed to be transphobic so they changed the definition of bisexual somewhere along the way.

[–]Ladis_Wascheharuum 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That is exactly what happened, I remember those years. "Bi" still meant "two" and "pan" was created for people who were also attracted to trans or intersex (those shouldn't be conflated either, but that's what it was then). It was still acknowledged that attraction to trans people wasn't universal, or even a majority. There was even a specific label (skoliosexual) for attraction to trans people.

Pansexual was meant for people who had homo, hetero, and skoliosexual attraction.

But then in the 2010s not dating trans people became transphobic, so any sexuality that excluded them was no longer "valid", but being bisexual still had some cool cred. To resolve this contradiction, they redefined bisexuality to include trans people. Skoliosexuality as a label got swept under the rug, as far as I can tell.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

this seems accurate. Bi refers to a binary and we can't have that.

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

Skoliosexuality as a label got swept under the rug, as far as I can tell.

That's the Greek root for abnormal curvature of the spine, right? People who suffer from scoliosis (I remember the mass screening they did of us in 6th grade!) should NOT be stigmatized with some fetish label.

Why not call it "trans-sexuality"? And I'm being kind there. "Cross-sex fetishism" seems more appropriate.

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

You know transgenders can't make up anything for themselves, they thrive off stealing, appropriating, forced redefining, invading, and violent intimidation to get what they want. Making up a new label is too hard and doesn't get them off.

They already stolen the language for women(adult human females), stealing from people suffering from scoliosis is like cake.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

I agree that being bi doesnt mean attraction to trans automatically, but being attracted to trans isn't a fetish and it is included in bisexuality, even though not all bisexuals want trans

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I agree that being bi doesn’t mean you’re open to date transgenders just like being lesbian doesn’t mean I’m open to date transmen identified women but one cannot say transgenders cannot be included in bisexual’s attraction chart. Liking a transgender isn’t a fetish by default. Saying a bisexual isn’t capable of being genuinely attracted to a transgender is actually reinforcing the idea that transwomen aren’t men and transmen aren’t women. Everyone has a sex, including transgenders. You not wanting to date a transgender is a sexual preference, not a sexual orientation limitation. And people’s sexual preference should be respected as much as their sexual orientations. Bisexuals may like males but just because they like males it doesn’t mean they have to like Robert even though Robert is male. A bisexual not liking Robert is a sexual preference not a sexual orientation limitation. I like women. Just because I like women doesn’t mean I like any and every woman. I’m not dating a obese woman, I’m not dating a creationist woman, I’m not dating a woke woman, I’m not dating a bisexual woman; that does not mean obese, religious, woke, and bisexual women are not women nor it means lesbians aren’t capable of being attracted to such women, it just mean I am not. Learn the difference between sexual preference and sexual orientation because the confusion of these two things is the exactly reason why dropthet unfortunately needs to exist.

As for their reputation... well, it takes time to build a reputation, whether is a bad or good reputation. If you have a reputation, especially one that outlive time and oceans, you may deserve it. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Reputations do not born out of nowhere, that I know.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So why are you, a lesbian, telling us bisexuals what is and isnt bisexual? You sound like a TRA.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, I'm pretty sure you're attracted to bi women, bi isn't a look or a character. You don't want to date them because they're more risky, which I get. I prefer lesbian too by a long shot, but open to date bi for practical set but need to make sure they're interest in women is at least equal to that of man, much better if they got a female preferance. And I'm not dating obese women, nor I'm dating butches, nor dominant women, not women with low level of intelligence, nor women who too clingy or self-obsessed, nor women who don't eat pussy like a champ, not blonde with bloue eyes (this is more like a joke, but tend to find too light womjen cold), women with low libido and so and so on. Which doesn't make them any less women, but anyone has their liking.

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm pretty sure you're attracted to bi women

Errm. I’m not any more attracted to them than I am attracted to a very well passing transwoman. I may lust over them just by see them if they are hot but in the minute I know that have a dick or are dick suckers the attraction is naturally gone. So I would say I’m not attracted to them. Visual appeal by itself isn’t enough to characterize sexual attraction imo. The point I’m making is, my attraction or lack of it towards a bisexual is a sexual preference, not sexual orientation. My attraction or lack of it towards a a transwoman is sexual orientation, not sexual preference, given that I’m homosexual. Sexual orientation =/= sexual preference. And the tentative to divorce sexual orientations from sex is the reason why homosexuals and heterosexuals are bullied into be open to the sex they don’t like for the sake of transness.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree bisexuality is about sex and that's naturally include trans as they belong to a sex , they're not a third gender nor they're a fetish. Anyway didn'tknow some lesbians felt that way as completely losing attraction when knowing someone is bi. Fascinating how attraction works

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

As for their reputation... well, it takes time to build a reputation, whether is a bad or good reputation. If you have a reputation, especially one that outlive time and oceans, you may deserve it. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Reputations do not born out of nowhere, that I know.

Would this be equally true of any reputation that lesbians have? In that, as long as it's prevalent... you may deserve it? However negative, insulting, harmful, and homophobic it might be?

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

Which harmful/homophobic stereotypes that exist about lesbian?

That we’re are just lesbian because we hate men? Political lesbians are bisexuals.

That we’re are just lesbians because we’ve been raped? The women that use lesbian as a trauma cope are bisexual.

That we’re just lesbian to get male attention? Bisexuals are the women using “lesbian” to look fuckble for males

That is just a phase we’ll grow out of it when we find the right man? Who are the type of women that larp as lesbian and then get boyfriends when they grow out of their “lesbian phase”? I’ll let you guess this one :D

I would say all these stereotypes exist because they are real, I have met bisexuals performing every single one of them both online and irl, they exist for a reason, they don’t come out of nowhere, they reflect reality, they just don’t reflect lesbians.

Now that lesbians are toxic; hmm I’m biased to judge but it’s probably true. Everyone is toxic by snowflakes standards. We move on too fast? true. Domestic violence? Probably true. Serial monogamists? Although I don’t fit on this one it’s true for most lesbians. I could go on and on but my time is finite.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Most lesbians who move on too fast (which I get, finding the right person is hard, specially for little dating poll, when you find someone who is so compatible is feels like magic and you don't want to lose time, I could see myself getting married fast with someone right). The serial monogamy is said for people who can't stay alone and just stay in relationships for the sake of it. I wonder why most are like that. Is that a specific woman issue? Anyway, I can't say you're wrong, now that I think about it, most negative stereotypes about lesbians are caused by bisexuals lol

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anyway, I can't say you're wrong, now that I think about it, most negative stereotypes about lesbians are caused by bisexuals lol

If this is truly the first time you could see it then you need to stop thinking with your cunt and start to think with your brain more often when judging women Alvira, they are hot not saints haha 😛

Want another funny realization? The bisexual that thought she was having a gotcha moment won’t answer my comment because she knows I’m right. Professional victims do x and whine when they are judged for doing x. These things can’t stand by themselves, they hate being hold accountable for their own actions and decisions. Generally they can be cuddle and have their ass kissed by some meek, dormant lesbians in here, I’m not having it though.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Your assertivie personality makes me want to workship your cunt lol

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Do you have any evidence to back up any of these claims?

I'm no expert, but I'll take a stab at it.


That we’re are just lesbian because we hate men? Political lesbians are bisexuals.

I'm sure that some are bisexual; some are undoubtedly straight women; some may even be lesbian. Do you have a source that suggests they're all bisexual? My understanding was that the "political lesbian" concept not only involves the belief that sexual orientation is chosen, but is specifically about being separate from men:

While the main idea of political lesbianism is to be separate from men, this does not necessarily mean that political lesbians have to sleep with women; some choose to be celibate or identify as asexual. The Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group definition of a political lesbian is "a woman identified woman who does not fuck men".

That sounds more like straight women who are just sick of men...

And:

The women that use lesbian as a trauma cope are bisexual.

Are all actually bisexual? Some are severely mentally ill straight women. Some forms of mental illness include symptoms such as lack of awareness of one's own bodily sensations-- a skill that's necessary for observing one's own signs of sexual attraction. It'd be hard to figure out the sexual orientation of those people, at all...

I would say all these stereotypes exist because they are real

I think there is some degree of reality to many stereotypes, and also a large degree of inaccuracy. It just depends on the stereotype. The only "political lesbian" I ever met in real life was a straight woman.

We move on too fast? true.

Evidence...?

Domestic violence? Probably true.

Probably not. From the US CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010): "There were no statistically significant differences between the prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women"

I don't really understand why you believe so many of these stereotypes about bisexuals OR lesbian women, lol. Like, have you met people IRL who fulfill these stereotypes, or what?

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I'm sure that some are bisexual; some are undoubtedly straight women; some may even be lesbian. Do you have a source that suggests they're all bisexual? My understanding was that the "political lesbian" concept not only involves the belief that sexual orientation is chosen, but is specifically about being separate from men:

By definition lesbians cannot be ‘political lesbians’ and ‘political lesbians’ cannot be lesbians. The reason why the two terms exist is exactly because they are two different things that need to be differentiated. If a actual lesbian is a man hater, then she’s a lesbian that is man hater, not a political lesbian. A political lesbian is a non homosexual woman that use homosexual as a political statement, a separatist tool. They are not heterosexual, as you already acknowledged, a straight woman can be a 100% separatist feminist and not sleep with women, such women exist, and they are not political “lesbians” for choosing eternal celibacy or pretend to be asexual. Do not believe a heterosexual woman can be political lesbian. Straight women don’t fuck women. But I cannot show any prove of their sexual orientation, neither can you, so we better off sticking to material reality instead of “what if”.

Are all actually bisexual? Some are severely mentally ill straight women. Some forms of mental illness include symptoms such as lack of awareness of one's own bodily sensations-- a skill that's necessary for observing one's own signs of sexual attraction. It'd be hard to figure out the sexual orientation of those people, at all...

My last answer for your first concern can be applied to this as well.

I think there is some degree of reality to many stereotypes, and also a large degree of inaccuracy. It just depends on the stereotype. The only "political lesbian" I ever met in real life was a straight woman.

You met a political lesbian, anecdotal. It doesn’t take back that political lesbians are bisexual by default, if you use a bit of logic. Btw If she was engaging in homosexuality than your anecdote weight goes from 0 to -100 if she wasn’t engaging on homosexuality than how is she a ‘political lesbian’ and not simply a separatist feminist? I’m not a dumbass dormant or a mother despite being a woman, that doesn’t mean that women having the reputation of being dumbass dormants and be mothers, sometimes both, is inaccurate. A stereotype is a widely held, simplified, belief about a specific group, it is not a intrinsic rule for all.

Evidence?

For what exactly? I don’t need evidence for that. I personally don’t move on too fast, nor I am a serial monogamist, nor will I ever or have ever move in with a woman after just one year (or less) of relationship, none of these stereotypes apply to myself as a individual, but they apply to a large amount of lesbians otherwise they wouldn’t be stereotypes at all. My point was and still is, reputation and stereotypes do not come out of nowhere.

Probably not. From the US CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010): "There were no statistically significant differences between the prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women"

Yes, you’re right on this one, probably not but I can see it being probably yes, either way I’m not betting my head on that, hence the ‘probably’.

I don't really understand why you believe so many of these stereotypes about bisexuals OR lesbian women, lol. Like, have you met people IRL who fulfill these stereotypes, or what?

You can’t understand why I think the way I do if you use different metrics to think than I do. You seemly to not even come to term on what is a heterosexual women or a lesbian, for the sake of appearing partial. No offense but a people pleaser not understanding me isn’t really surprising, I don’t understand you either so I think we’re even on that.

I have never met a single woman to fit in all the stereotypes about lesbians at once, but yes I have met lesbians that fit in stereotypes. As for bisexuals.. I have met many bisexuals, far majority at some point or another lay in the bed they made for themselves. This is not to say every single bisexuals are X and deserve z, y, w reputation but that the reputation bisexuals have do reflect reality and those of them that do not fit in on the stereotypes, despite not be responsible for the stereotypes, have no leg to stand on being scandalized surprided pikachu face for stereotypes about them existing as if never in human history a bisexual have done what bisexuals are accused of doing/being. One can fight stereotypes without pretending they come out of nowhere, no need to lies or gaslighting.

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

They are not heterosexual, as you already acknowledged, a straight woman can be a 100% separatist feminist and not sleep with women, such women exist, and they are not political “lesbians” for choosing eternal celibacy or pretend to be asexual.

What I quoted was that, for many self-described "political lesbians" that actually is the definition of being a "political lesbian"-- to not want to sleep with men, regardless of whether one sleeps with women. Many of these women claim attraction to men and not women, suggesting that they are straight, as opposed to lesbian or bisexual. But "political lesbianism" is a political belief, which a person of any actual sexual orientation can hold.

To be clear, I am talking about the definition of "political lesbian" as radical feminists originally defined it, and not just the state of being a lesbian (homosexual woman) who has political opinions.

Straight women don’t fuck women.

Yes; and, many self-identified "political lesbians" do not fuck women, as the quote I mentioned above describes.

My last answer for your first concern can be applied to this as well.

Which was:

But I cannot show any prove of their sexual orientation, neither can you, so we better off sticking to material reality instead of “what if”.

I completely agree. But if that's the case, then why'd you respond to u/PenseePansy saying that you thought they were all bisexual?

For what exactly? I don’t need evidence for that.

You need evidence to make broad generalizations about an entire demographic group, or else people might call you out for being unrealistic about that group. Rule 1 in the sidebar: "Don't make broad generalizations." I mean, if this has been your life experience, it's interesting to hear about that; (edit) but it's not necessarily reflective of reality.

hence the ‘probably’.

That's fair.

You can’t understand why I think the way I do if you use different metrics to think than I do.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I like to use evidence-- scientific studies, survey research, and articles-- to back up my claims, if that's what you mean. But the only way I can learn a little more about how you think is if I ask, which is what I did.

You seemly to not even come to term on what is a heterosexual women or a lesbian, for the sake of appearing partial.

Can you quote me where I gave this impression? I-- like (hopefully) everyone else on this sub-- define "lesbian" as a homosexual woman, "straight" as heterosexual, "bisexual" as being attracted to both sexes. That's my frame of reference, and I don't think it's "partial" (i.e. "biased") of me to use those definitions...

No offense but a people pleaser not understanding me isn’t really surprising, I don’t understand you either so I think we’re even on that.

I'm not sure why you are resorting to name-calling, but in any case, I don't think that asking some questions to a user who believes in stereotypes about LGB people constitutes "people-pleasing" behavior. We may have to agree to disagree there.

I have never met a single woman to fit in all the stereotypes about lesbians at once, but yes I have met lesbians that fit in stereotypes. As for bisexuals.. I have met many bisexuals, far majority at some point or another lay in the bed they made for themselves. ...

I am not really sure what you mean by vaguely menacing terms such as "lay in the bed they made for themselves," lol. But it sounds like your experience has been that most of these stereotypes are true; I'm sorry to hear that. For me, some lesbian and bisexual women I've met seem to fit stereotypes, whereas others don't at all (I'm lesbian myself). I think it's simultaneously possible to recognize that anecdotes aren't a reliable basis for making generalizations about an entire demographic. If that were true, then if a straight person met exactly 1 gay person who was rude, they might conclude that all gay people are rude and be fully justified in telling other people that "all gay people are rude, because I had this experience." Which would be slander in regards to the gay people who are not.

One can fight stereotypes without pretending they come out of nowhere, no need to lies or gaslighting.

I agree. At the same time, it is also important to acknowledge the largely-false part that many stereotypes have.

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

Many of these women claim attraction to men and not women, suggesting that they are straight,

I'm with RC. I think there is a class of women out there who, for reasons I do not want to get into, nor do I think that conversation would be fruitful, make the mammalian-brain volitional choice to choose other women as partners, in the stead of men. Their reptilian brains direct them towards the men.

This is their choice, and I respect it. However, it is my purview to recognize the nature of their interest in the sexes. People are free to say what they want about themselves, but I do not have to accept their claims, and I do judge them on this.

If a woman introduces herself to me as a heterosexual, but a "political lesbian," then such a woman has my respect. It is the misdirection, misrepresentation that her partnering with other women is due to a physiological compulsion--this draws my extreme ire.

I also do not maintain that political lesbians are necessarily homosexual or bisexual. (These are their words, by the way.)

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which harmful/homophobic stereotypes that exist about lesbian?

Well, I wouldn't say that the ones you cite (and dismiss as being applicable only to bi women) are the fundamental ones. THOSE would be the following (disclaimer: I've never actually believed any of this-- just playing reporter here):

  • Being exclusively same-sex attracted means that you can't reproduce, therefore lesbians are unnatural and unhealthy: pointless at best, harmful to society at worst.
  • Being attracted to men is fundamental to being a woman; therefore, lesbians are not really women. This means that they are either neuter (essentially sexless creatures) or pseudo-men. Either way, they are ugly failures.
  • Due to both of the above, lesbians are psychologically "sick"-- neurotic/immature/mentally-unbalanced-- and often predatory towards straight women. (Well, they CAN'T be attracted to each other-- they're all ugly, duh!)
  • Since sexual activity isn't "real" without the presence of a penis, lesbian sex doesn't count as sex. Therefore, lesbians are delusional and pathetic for thinking that it does. Theirs is less a sexual orientation than a failure to develop any kind of sexuality. They're backward and childish and generally incapable of dealing with adult life.

Now, how does any of THAT apply to bisexual women? But you can see lesbians being viewed through this lens, all right-- especially given the current lesbian-to-transman pipeline.

So: do you agree that these stereotypes exist because they are "real"? And if they AREN'T "real", then how, according to your own argument, did they ever get to be stereotypes in the first place?

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Being exclusively same-sex attracted means that you can't reproduce, therefore lesbians are unnatural and unhealthy: pointless at best, harmful to society at worst. Being attracted to men is fundamental to being a woman; therefore, lesbians are not really women. This means that they are either neuter (essentially sexless creatures) or pseudo-men. Either way, they are ugly failures.

A) None of these are stereotypes, they are beliefs.

B) Neither of these beliefs are specifically about lesbians, they are beliefs about women. They naturally extend itself to lesbians because lesbians are women, not the other way around. There are bihet women that don’t get married and don’t have children and they are shamed and bullied for not marrying or having children.

The ‘lesbians sex is not real sex’ is also not stereotype, it’s a belief. One may think is dumb, fucked up, or homophobic but I don’t see how it’s harmful. It has no actual negative impact on lesbians lives if bihets think lesbian sex isn’t real sex besides may be insulting. And it doesn’t reflect reality it reflects an opinion.

Your whole ‘argument’ is like saying going to hell is a homosexual stereotype. It’s not. Homosexuals aren’t known for going to hell, this isn’t something that was done over and over again by homosexuals. It’s not a homosexual trait to go to hell. No one can prove homosexuals go to hell or that hell exist. ‘Homosexuals go to hell’ is a belief.

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

Yeah, exactly... this applies the exact same way to gay men and lesbian women. I am a little late to this thread, it seems, but I made a comment about it further up.

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

As for their reputation... well, it takes time to build a reputation, whether is a bad or good reputation. If you have a reputation, especially one that outlive time and oceans, you may deserve it.

What...? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that negative stereotypes about bisexual people are true? These words are just as applicable to lesbian women or to gay men. People have reputations for all sorts of reasons... LGB people have been associated with the reputations of "perversion" and "having sexual desires caused by trauma" because straight people throughout history have shamed and condemned same-sex attraction. Those are indeed reputations that "outlive time and oceans"-- do you think they're accurate?

(I'll add for the record, I think the way you characterized sexual orientation vs. sexual preference makes sense.)

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Being attracted to trans people is not bisexual in any shape or form

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Of course is bisexual. You sound like TRA who don't get sexuality is about sex and nothing else.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

No it isnt. Fuck off.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

LMAO You surely have convinced me with your argument. No difference between you and TRA when it comes to not understading what sexuality is about.

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

You are the one saying that bisexuals should be attracted to trans. You are the TRA. Seriously fuck off with your TRA bullshit.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Never said that, I actually said the opposite, that not all bisexual want trans. But wanting or not wanting trans isn't sexuality, it's preferance. Sexuality is about attraction to a specific sex or both. Like it isn't biologically impossible for me to be attractedto masculine women as they belong to my sexuality, but they're not my preferance. A bisexual might not be attracted to trans, but that's because of their specific tastes, not bacause of sexuality. I'm unable to be attracted to a transwoman because they're the opposite sex, which makes for me biologically impossible to get aroused by their part. But if I were bi I could be biologically be attracted to their male sex and might like to date them or not, but it wouldn't be my orientation to stop them, but my personal taste. Sexual orientation is about ability to get attraction to one sex, whle attraction or lack of to specific types of people is a personal tastes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you are attracted to trans people, you are pan not bi. The fact that you are arguing against this just proves you're a TRA.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Pan is just a bs word for bisexual who likes trans. Real sexualities are only het, homo and bi

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

No

[–]emptiedriver 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

why would you distinguish between pan and bi? There are just two sexes, so everyone belongs to one of them. We might not be attracted to a man or woman who's had radical cosmetic surgery and has weird fetishes, or whatever, but that doesn't alter what sex they are.

They aren't a third category - a trans man is just a woman, who you might have no interest in dating, but some bi people and some lesbians might be open to it. No gay man would be, by definition, since if he's attracted he's attracted to women.

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Not really, a lesbian could be attracted to a trans man or a gay man to a trans woman just as easily as a bisexual to either of them.

If a bisexual is attracted to both it's only because they don't care which sex they are, but they're still whichever sex they are, in which case, hetero or homosexual people can still be attracted to the trans people of the sex (not "gender") they prefer.

*edit: reading further comments I think that's what you were getting at...? *edit2: nope :)

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Attracted at first sight, but as soon as I know the real sex,attraction is gone. So is more the brain getting tricked than real attraction, as their real sexual parts can't never get me aroused

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, I'm saying the "real parts" are the parts that match. A lesbian can be attracted to a trans man - a woman who identifies as a man - as easily as a bisexual person could. It is nothing to do with how they identify, it's do with what is actually the case.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Personally I could never as that point even if they're female, the hormones have changed secondary sex characteristics, but I'm someone who doesn't like masculinity in general, someone who does, could, that truth.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

a) not all trans people are on hormones these days with "self ID" but more importantly b) that was the whole point of the original poster. Bisexuals are also sexually attracted to people. They are attracted to women as women, and men as men. If a lesbian is not going to be attracted to a trans man because she has altered her body with weird hormones, don't assume a bisexual person would have any more interest, just because they like both sexes.

The question is just whether you can be attracted to a person who has taken hormones, had surgeries or has weird fantasies. But, orientation-wise, it's open to anyone (and some people might enjoy the presentation but the real attraction is going to be to the actual sex, so a man attracted to trans women is gay or bi, etc)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No

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

I've had this experience, many times. I find a feminine man or a masculine woman striking, but then it clicks that they're not as such. They're an artificially masculinized woman, or a feminized man, respectively. Mammalian brain catches up with the reptile one, but a visceral, reptilian disappointment--as established by the higher-order functions--does set in. I don't want to date mental disorder. I'm not looking for complicated. I want peace. I've got my own issues to deal with, I don't need other people's.

[–]NiceDickBro 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How about they just stop entirely trying to force people to have sex with people they don’t want to... I do believe there is a term for this.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How about they just stop entirely trying to force people to have sex with people they don’t want to

FROM YOUR LIPS TO GOD'S EAR

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But why bother with pushing this general sexual autonomy idea when filtering the dating pool by stating one's sexual orientation works so well?

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

Yeah also not convinced bisexuality by definition can't include trans. Honestly it is the most likely here. But what is missing is we are allowed to not be attracted to anyone at any time for ANY reason. Its called consent and the loss of that is what really has shut me down to the whole trans movement.

Personally I don't find plastic surgery on anyone attractive, because in many cases (especially trans) its indicative of poor mental health. Been there done that and will not date someone who isn't stable again.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I hate that being sexually attracted to a fetish is being conflated with a natural sexual attraction to regular old women and men. In my opinion, if you are sexually attracted to trans people, you are dealing with a fetish of some kind, not a traditional sexual orientation

In sex research, one of the (sometimes recognized) criteria for heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is phenotypically normal, or, in common parlance: men and women. Not trans.

Miss the mark entirely on phenotypicality, and you're something else--not straight, not gay, nor bi.

There's concise language available, if you want to get technical, which I encourage.

Many people who want to date trans, especially men interested in trans women, can have a bisexual identity. This is a fault of only having three categories--as above--to stuff complex phenomena into. When they say bisexual, they mean male and female characteristics in the same person. Not men and women. Oft, you're looking at an interest in women, and trans women. That's different than a classical understanding of bisexuality, which I take. So: not bisexual.

So there's the problem, in a nutshell. It is more or less about sexual identity. OP, I'm with you.

But we can't sit on our high horse and insist that all of human sexuality's salient dimensions can be reduced to our sex, and their sex, because we're just reinforcing this hell that we find ourselves in. I'm just as frustrated with this proliferation of sexual identities as everyone else is. For me, the reason isn't the multitudes of identities, but how they miss the mark, and ultimately skirt around the real issues.

I'm confident none of this will be resolved by sticking with the categories that we've found ourselves reserved to. If we reject that hitherto unaccounted for sexual margins exist, then we are no better than those that rejected (and reject) homosexuality as a real phenomena.

Ghandi said that: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. He was wrong. First, they deny you even exist.

We don't have to like those phenomena--nor do they have to be ethical, moral, or legal--for us to point at them and say: aha!

If all the gyneandromorphophile has to categorize himself is gay, straight, and bisexual, well, then, there you go. Suffer the consequences if you're over-committed to the three categories.

We let people declare their politics, or their religion--any way they like. But, if somebody claims a unique sexuality, everyone looses their goddamned minds. Why? This question drives me nuts. And it's driving those people on the margins to frequently identify as bisexual, because it is the only thing that is afforded to them. By you. I'm looking at you.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If all the gyneandromorphophile has to categorize himself is gay, straight, and bisexual, well, then, there you go. Suffer the consequences if you're over-committed to the three categories.

We've debated this one in some fun circles on this sub before, lol... I'm not sure I have the energy to pick it up again tonight, but I'll just say, I'm still fence-sitting til there is some more definitive information on just what defines the GAMP experience. If it's just a man's attraction to very feminine males, like a guy with a very specific type... I mean, that just sounds like bisexuality to me. But if the arousal comes from some sort of humiliation element, then that sounds more like a fetish or paraphilia than bisexuality.

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

I don't think I have anything new to bring to the table on GAMP.

What I was trying to point out is how we have LGB, and that if we insist that all sexual phenomena must be categorized only as one of those three letters, then things that are not technically LGB will go around walking and talking as LGB. I think it's obvious this is happening.

To me, in a technical, sex research context, that matters. That kind of detail is important there. There's another context, however:

I must admit, that you could, by example, get two men who I wouldn't consider to be bisexual or homosexual (technical context,) in a relationship with each other. A pair of exclusive (meaning, the entirety of their sexuality) furries is a good instance. They're not interested in adult humans, they're interested in anthropomorphic animals. It was their peculiar sexuality that brought them together, but a same-sex relationship is a same-sex relationship, regardless of etiology. The discrimination they're going to face isn't coming from the fact that they're furries. It is unlikely that any other person would be privy to this, if they keep their private life private, but if they go out to a fancy dinner together (social context,) then everyone will know they're in a relationship.

Of course I'm not going to make an absurd demand that only classically homosexual men can enjoy a nice restaurant, and just because the two furries have a (probably) wildly different etiology that they cannot benefit from the gay rights movement.

There is still a line between the two groups. I guess I've got my underwear in a bunch because I see people running around understanding themselves as classically bisexual, for instance, when their same-sex interest is a paraphilic one. That irks my pedantry. That isn't meant to try and--sorry for the word--invalidate anyone. Love is love, as we say.

The question I have is: does the line matter? (I think it does, somehow.) And where to place it? In a technical context, yes, absolutely, it matters. In a social one? I do not know, I cannot decide. The answer can even be entirely self-serving to the paraphiles. They get to do what they want to do because of norms around human sexuality--because of the gay rights movement--if they're in the West, at least. You can have a furry convention and not get raided by the morality police. As we are seeing though, LGB acceptance, at least in the USA, is very much on the decline because of the trans phenomena, which is largely driven by autogynephiles; paraphilia.

So there's the obvious concern that classically LGB people should have.

The way I've been approaching it is that most people are bereft of the technical context, and I think they suffer for that lack of understanding. Instead, they focus on the social context, not even knowing that there is this, at least as I put it, this entirely different world out there.

In incredibly rare instances, you have people approaching the topic from the technical context, where they want their technical sexual identity to be their social identity. Some AGP are like this, for instance. They know what's up, and they want to be understood as AGP. E.g. Debbie Hayton. They don't want to be understood as L, G, or B. They're AGP, they know they're AGP, and they want you to know they're AGP. I'm onboard with this. Or, I posted a (different) video from her the other day, Jillian Keenan--an exclusive masochist. Her interest in men and women is entirely paraphilic, and she goes into depth talking about this. I think Keenan got the idea from Charles Moser (a sex researcher--not one I hold in high regard, by the way) to add a Y axis to Kinsey. So 0-6 on x-axis (opposite to same-sex), and 0-6 on y-axis (sex as the erotic locus to paraphilia.) She is 3,6 on her scale: both sexes, equally, only paraphilia.

These sorts of people I don't find as a threat to the gay rights movement, nor its legacy. However, less-developed people, I absolutely do.

So there's this existential dilemma that some people face, or are at least mildly aware of. Going back to our two furries, if someone asks of one of them: sexual orientation? That's a damn complicated answer now. Do they say furry, or do they say gay? Does it depend on the context? Is the fool's choice in single-indicator measures? Can we combine the two contexts? I think the technical context is always more concise, so this is something I favor.

Yet, the technical context, I don't think, should deprive a person of the benefits that are available in the social context. I'm looking for the right moral and ethical blend here (again, combinatorial) and having a tough time with it. Thoughts, even half-formed ones?

Good to see you again, and how are life things?

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

What I was trying to point out is how we have LGB, and that if we insist that all sexual phenomena must be categorized only as one of those three letters, then things that are not technically LGB will go around walking and talking as LGB. I think it's obvious this is happening.

I agree. I think that's likely to happen anyway, though; I don't think breaking off GAMP will solve the problem of, say, "political lesbian" hetereosexual women pretending to be lesbian, or straight women pretending to be bisexual, or whatever else. But-- when we say "not technically LGB," I think that's really at the heart of the debate; a lot of people on this sub seem to be torn on whether GAMP is, by definition, part of the LGB (and that's something I'm still unsure about myself).

The question I have is: does the line matter? (I think it does, somehow.)

It certainly does for understanding the phenomena, if there is such a line. I wouldn't say it matters in all contexts, but then, what line or label does? Sometimes you've got to oversimplify things.

The way I've been approaching it is that most people are bereft of the technical context, and I think they suffer for that lack of understanding. Instead, they focus on the social context, not even knowing that there is this, at least as I put it, this entirely different world out there.

Very true. At least in the US, this problem seems to be ubiquitous when discussing any controversial topic, not just LGB or TQ ones.

I think Keenan got the idea from Charles Moser (a sex researcher--not one I hold in high regard, by the way) to add a Y axis to Kinsey. So 0-6 on x-axis (opposite to same-sex), and 0-6 on y-axis (sex as the erotic locus to paraphilia.) She is 3,6 on her scale: both sexes, equally, only paraphilia.

That's fascinating, I haven't heard of that system of description before. I can think of some issues with it off the bat, but it does seem like a convenient way for at least some people to get their point across.

Thoughts, even half-formed ones?

Unfortunately I don't have a ton of time right now, but I'll keep thinking about this :) it is a difficult question. One of the few big questions I really have not been able to figure out my opinion on! But I also haven't done any sort of dive into the relevant research literature, perhaps I am missing some context.

Good to see you again, and how are life things?

Good! Extremely busy, but good. Sorry I'm responding to this like 2 weeks later, hahaha. I'm hoping to soon get back on the sub more often, but it will probably be another week at least before that happens. I was just reading this thread about resources pages for this sub and now I've got that to think about and plan for. How are you doing?

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

I think choosing to trans is to choose to preemptively produce what are basically future trans-widows out of people who would otherwise be attracted to the individual. Someone who, despite their sexual orientation, cannot be attracted to the transed person due to their gender identity, behavior, or modifications due to surgery or drug use that remove primary or secondary sex characteristics and replace them with archetyped facsimiles of the real thing.

Imagine someone you like suddenly lacking many of the sex specific characteristics they have now and also large parts of their personality having disappeared overnight in favor of a character's of the opposite sex in a novel they read that they figured it would be cute/cool to imitate permanently in your presence. The severity varies, but at some point their old self(and the reason you were drawn to them in the first place) is basically dead to you and it should be okay to no longer be attracted to them. And this reasoning can be used for people who you haven't even met before they transed. The Trans-widowism effect is not just a feature of marriage.

[–]HelloMomo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The most concise phrasing of this idea that I've seen to date:

Bisexuals — and particularly bi women — are treated as a communal sexual resource.

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

Men don't do it because of the awful social stigma, but I get the impression that some bisexual-identifying women have the label because of how (shitty) heterosexuality works? It somehow increases their sexual capital, no different than a push-up bra.

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

Many people in the LGBTQ+ movement seem to generalize bisexual people as "being attracted to everyone," which seems like one of the oldest stereotypes in the book. Just because a person is attracted to one sex doesn't mean they're attracted to all members of that sex... just because someone is attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they're attracted to everyone. It strikes me as an example of absolutist, black-and-white thinking. "You are either attracted to everyone of that sex, or none of them at all!"

It is messed up that you guys have to deal with this. I could easily imagine a young bisexual teenager coming to believe that they are unwanted or worth less, because of their sexual orientation, after being exposed to this sort of rhetoric.