LGB ErasureThe only possible explanation for being gay and not LGBTQT++++ is: Republican Nazism!

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from (reddit.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

When did this idiotic subreddit start having an automod comment under every post evangelizing about "biromantic lesbians"?

Biromantic Lesbians: LGBTQ And All

Sexists. I see there is no "biromantic gay men" article and comment. Just keep pressuring women to date men no matter what, that's fine.

Most biromantic individuals identify as asexual, meaning they can have romantic connections with people without wanting to sleep with them.

Emotional connection without sexual attraction is called a friendship, you fucking morons. It enrages me to see this blatantly homophobic and sexist drivel being spread because it pressures lesbian women to say and believe that they are bisexual, when they are not. This is exactly what happened to me when I was younger. And it is harmful for both lesbian and bisexual women. Meanwhile, equally clueless people in academia completely neglect to mention this phenomenon of lesbian women being pressured to self-identify as bisexual, and instead like to claim bullshit like "wOmEn aRe nAtUrAlLy bIsExUaL!1!" (edit: looking at you, Michael Bailey)

Anyway... on to the actual post...

So much angry denial and scapegoating in the top-voted comments, lol:

Hearing that with no other context makes me immediately assume it’s someone who votes Republican

"Liberal LGB people who want to drop the TQ must not exist." A massive lie.

Internalized homophobia

sounds like "pick me" behavior

"If you don't want to join us, then there is something wrong with you." Hmm, what a lovely-sounding, accepting community, I wonder why so many of us LGB don't want to be a part of it 😆

Sounds like he might be willing to throw the rest of us under the bus rather than stand up for our rights (his included).

LGB people have already been thrown under the bus, that's why so many of us are leaving. Or at least trying to leave, but can't yet openly disavow LGBTQ+ because of the risk of violence.

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

Jehova witnesses were exactly like this.

"Good hearted, honest people will accept the truth"

"You can't be a real christian if you don't join our organization"

"Apostates are bitter, vindictive people. There isn't a good reason to leave God's organization"

Its scary how they use the same cult tactics. At this point they have killed the LGBT community and they are wearing its rainbow corpse. I pity young gay people who fall prey to their manipulation.

[–]Athelhilda4Questioning 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Homoromantic, Biromantic, and Heteromantic only makes sense for asexual people. A woman who is asexual and biromantic isn't a lesbian, she's an asexual who likes to snuggle, kiss, and hold hands with men and other women.

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

I'm not sure it even makes sense for asexuals... although I would be curious to hear the perspective of asexual people here. It just seems like an "asexual and biromantic" person could be simply described as a touchy-feely person who has no preference regarding the sex of who they are physically affectionate with. Just my POV, idk.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

According to this form of classification I am aromantic and asexual (so technically your stereotypical asexual) so I may not be able to answer that too well. I think the difference between sexless romance and friendship is a bit blurry. I guess you wouldn't kiss a friend though. Might be that asexual simply says they're comfortable with doing stuff like kissing with both sexes. Some only feel comfortable with doing it with the same sex as them or as the opposite one.

Since I am super clueless about romance and sex (I mean, not surprising lol) then I am not gonna try engaging in a discussion about romantic attraction. Traditionally romantic attraction is understood as platonic attraction and sexual attraction. In asexual community they define it as... platonic attraction with some extra but not sexual stuff? I mean I am not gonna critize it because it's not rare to find the same word meaning a bit different things depending on the place/context/culture. So I don't think it's a stretch that romantic attraction understood by asexuals will be different than romantic attraction defined by the rest of society. It even shows some of these fundamental differences between actual asexuals and the rest of population I assume.

But this is where I think the whole split attraction model should be used exclusively by asexuals. Because asexual romantic attraction(platonic+nonsexual extra) is different from typical romantic attraction (platonic+sexual).

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

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I wonder what that "nonsexual extra" is supposed to mean, though, to asexuals who identify with this framework... I could be wrong but I am really wondering if it may actually just be a very very strong platonic bond, such that the "asexual romantic" person is deeply invested in the person they have "romantic but not sexual" attraction to. I say "just" to indicate the simplicity of the type of attraction; I do not mean to diminish the significance of that bond in any way. If anything, "friend" is too light and casual a word to describe the kind of incredibly deep platonic bond that two human beings can have. I guess what I am saying is, I wonder if some "romantic asexuals" are actually experiencing platonic affection but are put off by how much pop culture may dismiss and undervalue deep platonic relationships compared to sexual ones.

I think there is also a different subgroup of "romantic asexuals" who seem to be disgusted by or otherwise bothered by their sexual attraction. I know a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual people sometimes call themselves asexual before realizing and/or admitting that they are LGB, because the fact of their own sexual attraction bothers or unnerves them, or makes them ashamed. I have known at least one straight person like this, too.

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

I definitely agree that the whole "romantic asexual" thing might be just a platonic bond but since people don't take friendships seriously even if such bonds can be as strong and a "breakup" hurts as much too, then they prefer to call it romantic so it could be seen as more significant.

If that's the case it's definitely rather sad, not gonna lie. I can form really strong platonic bonds (friendships) but since it's not romantic in the actual sense (lacks sexual component) then it isn't seen as important by society even if it is important for me. It is seen as okay to end or neglect such a relationship for the sake of romantic one because it's seen as higher priority.

So I can see why ace community is clingy towards using that wording. Even if it's technically wrong.

I also agree with the other subgroup of "romantic asexuals." I overall have the impression asexual label truly attracts confused people (or spicy straights) but since this is a some kind of entry to LGBT community as a whole then maybe with time they will grow more comfortable with being just gay or bi by observing others who are gay or bi there.

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

Emotional connection without sexual attraction is called a friendship, you fucking morons. It enrages me to see this blatantly homophobic and sexist drivel being spread because it pressures lesbian women to say and believe that they are bisexual, when they are not. This is exactly what happened to me when I was younger. And it is harmful for both lesbian and bisexual women. Meanwhile, equally clueless people in academia completely neglect to mention this phenomenon of lesbian women being pressured to self-identify as bisexual, and instead like to claim bullshit like "wOmEn aRe nAtUrAlLy bIsExUaL!1!" (edit: looking at you, Michael Bailey)

Yup I totally agree. I honestly think the whole stuff with biromantic, aromantic, homoromantic crap should be a thing exclusively used by asexuals. Using it outside of asexual community should be called a misuse and a mean of confusing people, who try to get more comfortable with being fully gay or bi.