How can we convince more bisexuals to care about homophobia?

nosympathy · 2021-09-18T06:15:59+00:00

Really, monosexism? What's up with these made up words a la queer theory? Next we'll be talking about how the mspecs needs to fight the heteropatriarchy to destroy cissexism.

Which I would define this way: not recognizing bisexuality as a sexual orientation at all.

In a broad sense, not even homosexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation. In fact, the concept of sexual orientation is not accepted or understood at all. Many still believe and perpetuate that homosexual attraction is some type of perversion, fetish or simply a consequence of maladaptive sexual development. As in, SSA people are only SSA because they suffered sexual trauma, because they were "recruited" (molested), daddy issues or whatever else. To most, there are no "valid" sexual orientations; there are normal people, and people that are sexually fucked up.

You seem to overestimate the acceptance of homosexuality. Many people, if they are accepting at all, will argue that is because "those poor things, they can't help it! Unfortunately they were born this way" (this way meaning "wrong"). So yeah, I admit that there is a bias against bisexual people in the sense that we are perceived as having a choice. "If you can like either, why are you choosing the bad option?? There must be really something wrong with you!!". To be fair, bi people will often exercise that choice. They stay closeted to avoid being seen as one of the "fucked up ones". You can't really think that the biggest stigma for bi people is not their admission of being SSA, but actually liking both sexes at the same time?? You probably live in a pretty privileged area. Which is fine, good for you, but your experiences are not universal.

gay people, for the most part, couldn't care less

This is such an unnecessarily overgeneralizing statement. What if I said that bisexual people couldn't care less about gay people's specific struggles? You really created this little story in your mind, and you even named it, were the evil gays ally with the straights to put down the bisexuals and cause most of their problems. Where, if you looked closely, most of gay people's so called "aversion to bisexuals" are them just trying to get away from heterosexuality altogether, which they have the right to do so. If I made up a stupid term, called "opposite-sexism", defined as the "non recognition of lack of opposite-sex attraction as something valid", would you then be willing to understand the negative view they might have of us?

not bisexuals posing a problem to homosexuals (the reverse is at least as true, given that we tend to have their back without them returning the favor)

You did not just completely ignored the queer/TQ+, "actually I think everyone is bisexual" crowd. And how many gay people bend over to spout the same bullshit even though it harms them. So much for having their backs. But of course, "those probably aren't even REAL bisexuals!!" or something. My point is, in both cases, both the "bisexuality isn't real" and the "homosexuality isn't real" are isolated cases that don't reflect the bigger picture that we are dealing with in the real world.

LGB fight together to end the stigma against same sex attraction. There only is "biphobia" because there is no acceptance of homosexuality. Because being same sex attracted makes someone be seen as lesser. Straight people want you to "pick a side" as long as it's the right one. Gay people want you to "pick a side" because either a) they think you are forcing yourself to be OSA as they might have done to themselves or b) they feel deeply insecure about your existence as someone that is just like them, but also has the option to not be seen as lesser for not being OSA (which are both them dealing with homophobia). They only deal with homophobia because there is no acceptance of homosexuality. So on and so forth.

nosympathy · 2021-09-12T05:42:21+00:00

because that has never been the definition of bisexual

the definition of bisexual is a person attracted to both males and females. everyone in the world, including trans people, are either male or female.

bisexual-erasure

you're the one seemingly ok with bisexual erasure as long as the target is a bisexual person you don't like or relate to.

nosympathy · 2021-07-14T16:11:22+00:00

But they need to pull their weight too and stop calling us straight people asking for attention when we come out

funny that a lot of bisexual people's response to these threads have been "these are just TRAs, they're probably not even REAL bisexuals just straights larping!!!". bisexuals are definitely at a lot of fault for dismissing straight-leaning bisexuals as just "straights looking for attention". this is not just an mOnoSeXUAls problem.

nosympathy · 2021-01-09T14:14:27+00:00

But what I want in this regard isn't to change anyone's behavior or modify society in some way beyond having a sensible taxonomy for human sexuality.

This is why the hetero/homo/bi tri(?)chotomy seems to work just fine. Regarding sexuality, there are many questions that one can ask; a perfectly valid one is "ok, so which sex do you want to do it with?". It's not that you can't ask other questions. Of course that is relevant as well, but it would need to be created other terms for those.

There are some GAMP who only want GAM. Exclusively. It's unique. If you only look at gametes, you'll miss that nuance.

Like I said, it's fine to ask other questions. But there are a myriad of other different body types as well and people have been doing just fine reconciling the various labels. There are bi men only attracted to big hairy bears, and there are bi men only attracted to hairless, twinky gays. Their interests don't intersect at all, but they seem to be fine under the same bi label.

I'm not saying that bisexual people should just be tossed all together in a room and learn to get along with each other, i understand the need for different denominations/labels/identities/whatever. But from your question

Should we conscript fairly regular bisexual and homosexual people for the purpose of normalizing GAMP? Is that fair? Should fetishism, as most people understand it, be added to the initialism?

it seems like it would be an insult to the "normal" ones that the fetishists belong to the same category as them, in this one axis. Like that would lead to people thinking bisexuality is also just another form of fetishism? What are you worried about here? In gay culture, there are so many fetish subcultures, some really nasty ones even, but i've never seen any gay man suggest they shouldn't call themselves gay. I guess because most people already seem to understand that homosexuality and fetishism are not the same thing, so they don't conflate the two, and both the "normal" and the fetishists get to do their own thing in peace.

do you want to take on GAMP as part of LGB? Or, would that be better served as a different social movement, albeit, with very similar goals.

They are bisexual, so they belong in the LGB (descriptive category) regardless. The LGB (as a social movement), in my view, intended to simply say "Hey, you all seem to think that the P should only go in the V and that is the end of that, because babies or whatever. This is not the only motivation for human sexuality. Same sex attraction occurs too and it occurs naturally". Period. The "let's divide everyone into various microlabels and identities because god forbid everyone doesn't get the sense that they are the most unique and different and special" is more something of the "Queer community", which we criticize here. Actually, i wouldn't think they were so bad because, and you seem to agree, there should be more awareness and acceptance of people that are different sexually and what not. It's the way they've climbed on the backs of gay and bisexual people and have been hurting on us since.

But why would fetishists need their own social movement? And if they did, don't straight people have fetishes too? If it's about ending discrimination for people with fetishes, so be it. No need to involve the "which sex" question in this case, it would be more of the "how". Why would there need to be a focus on the persons sexual orientation?

The lid is going to blow on the tautology that transwomen are women, eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be ugly.

I don't understand what you mean here.

nosympathy · 2021-01-09T04:31:10+00:00

I want to use "bisexual" to mean one type of thing

I found it funny that you admit this is about what you want.

I don't think it's meaningful to try and lump all of somebody's sexual makeup into just one word.

Because we'd have to have the MtF-interested/female interested bisexual. And then the male/female type bisexual.

I think i finally get why bisexual people just hate being called bisexual, or rather, to have to be "contained" to such a ~simplistic label. To reiterate strictly's argument, the term sexual orientation refers to one thing and one thing only: which sex(es) you are oriented towards. It was never supposed to "contain all of someone's sexual makeup" in one word.

You are losing sight of why these words were even created in the first place. "Homosexuality" was a necessary term that was lacking to combat homophobic/bioessentialists/overall just wrong beliefs about sexuality. Whether for religious or bioessentialists reasons (God/nature created a man and a woman to make babies together; God/nature never meant for you to put your dick in another man's ass/two penises don't go together; etc), creating that word is what enabled us to conceptualize that this won't always be the case for all people, and that it's a completely natural occurrence to be otherwise.

If you are having sex with people, you are interacting with a sexed body. Aside for literal deception, you are always aware of which sex you are interacting with (yes, even GAMPs, as evidenced by the fact that they always seem to find all the ways in which GAMs are so much better than 'cis' women: inability to get pregnant, never get periods, prefer it in the ass, and of course the most important - they have a penis! Very glaringly non-female characteristics wouldn't you say).

When or why or how a person got to that stage is not the point; When or how or why a person wants to have sex with another person is not the point. The point is to protect gay people; homosexuals, people that simply are not attracted to any shape or form of the opposite sex. It doesn't matter if that's irrelevant to the majority, or even 99.99999% of the population and their "sexual makeup". These words are already taken, and it's important that we keep it that way.

(I know this is an old thread, but i just found it today. Just felt like i had to put it out there)

nosympathy · 2020-11-28T20:56:34+00:00

often it's the lack of normal attraction/relationships that is seen as perverse.

what?? since when is being single or a virgin seen as something perverse? since when has asexuality been compared to pedophilia and zoophilia? since when has asexuality been criminalized as an offense against the order of nature?? truth is, asexuals are seen as a (more often than not, straight) person that has failed their reproductive role. homosexuals are seen as failing their reproductive role because they are sexual degenerates. although both can feel ashamed, isolated and demeaned, these are not the same experiences.

also, lots of people in this thread are saying that a person that wants to be in a relationship/get married and have kids can still be considered asexual. where's the stigma in any two people in a straight relationship?? no one is that worried about how often a couple has sex. people that want to be in straight relationships exclusively have no business being associated with LGB.

nosympathy · 2020-10-22T04:09:14+00:00

You seem to forget that not all trans people transition because of a fetish or for social acceptance. What you're describing is exactly how many trans people describe dysphoria, and how they just feel "wrong" in their body - also not because of any moral/social reasons.

Also I don't believe that "accepting that you're gay" means "forcing yourself to be in unhealthy relationships". If you want to be in a relationship, it would either be with a man or with a woman, and both options seem unsatisfactory for you either way. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with your situation, and since I'm not qualified to help you, I'll just leave you with this: why do you think learning to like female genitalia would be preferable over learning to not be repulsed by men? Most people would assume that you just want a healthy sexuality, not a straight one. That is probably why people are accusing you of internalized homophobia.

nosympathy · 2020-10-22T03:24:28+00:00

Well, saying that it's environmental could also lead people to be like "if we raise our children well we can prevent them from becoming gay!!" or whatever. Both sides could use either explanation to further an agenda.

And your comparison doesn't make sense. Since you already are homosexual, it makes more sense to accept it than to try to change it. If you're a man, it would be harder to change yourself into a woman. I compared them because of the similar thought process: a person that has an unchangeable trait (being a man/woman & being gay), which causes them distress. Instead of trying to live with it, they fixate on the idea that they could someday change their sex/sexual orientation. You seem to think that just because you don't like being gay, it is "a mistake" or a disorder. In the same manner, trans people assume that because they don't like their sex, it was "a mistake" and they were "born in the wrong body".

nosympathy · 2020-10-22T01:49:17+00:00

It is not a false equivalence. The more sane trans people (not the fetishist ones) don't actually believe they can change their sex, all they want is to be perceived by others as the opposite sex. That could also be described as a mental process. I'm comparing the two because both wish to change something that they can't change about themselves (as of yet).

Also, the evidence does NOT point to homosexuality being environmental. At most, it would be a combination of biological and environmental factors, so a biological predisposition is also involved. Either way, the fact that it is a "mental process" doesn't mean that you can just think your way out of it or whatever. Even the most common mental disorders are known to not being eradicated by therapy and medication, they can only be managed to cause the least amount of distress as possible. Even if you think you just have a mental condition that you could go to therapy for, the therapist would not be able to "fix you".

Maybe at some point in the future, with science and research, we could find out exactly how these things happen (and thus it could lead to a way to reverse them). But this is not possible yet. As far as I know, it is still of interest of the scientific community to find out what causes homosexuality, so you blaming your suffering on the activist screaming HOMOPHOBIA REEEE doesn't even make sense.

nosympathy · 2020-10-21T02:58:58+00:00

Hi Salty, could you explain the difference between your line of thinking "I hate being gay, my life would be better if I were straight" and TRA's "I hate being a man, my life would be better if I were a woman"?

nosympathy · 2020-10-01T22:55:09+00:00

Although Rod seems like a very bitter old man, I can kind of see how his view can be coming from a place of empathy (down at the bottom of all the layers of his sexual perversion of course). It is well known that the "true homosexuals" (aka gnc gay people) can really struggle, often from a very young age, with gender roles, socializing, dating, and dysphoria. I can see how he thinks transitioning can be a way to improve their quality of life, as undeniably some trans women and trans men do actually feel better off this way.

What I think it's interesting is that he himself has noticed that the rates of transition can very from culture to culture. He has observed that, in Asia, the transition rates of gay men are much larger, probably because of less acceptance of gay people ("ladyboy" is a term often used to describe asian trans women, the primary targets of his fetish I guess?). So yeah, I think entertaining the idea that gay men should transition to women instead of learning to accept themselves as gay is based on homophobia.

nosympathy · 2020-10-01T21:53:19+00:00

Lol I literally just yesterday fell into the Rod Fleming rabbit hole, so unfortunately I now understand this. Basically he believes that only feminine, skinny/petite, baby-faced gays are "true homosexuals" and that bisexual and masculine gay men (the "New Gay Male" or NGM) are a product of a social inversion that started in the 60's, which has been forcing masculinity into gayhood (yeah).

For him, "true homosexuals" have "feminine sexuality" and want to fuck straight men, just like women do. Of course Rod only believes that because he's GAMP (attracted to trans women (btw, he doesn't believe that AGP are actually trans)), so in his wettest dreams, all these "true homosexuals" should transition into women so he can have an infinite supply of ladyboys to fuck. His enemies are the "New Gay Male", who like gay men as men, and not as a potential women, so they don't encourage them to transition.

nosympathy