The crux of the whole sexuality matter

[Smallteaplant]

I think that some of the homosexuals here are concerned about the sexuality because they feel that sexuality is innate and immutable. People who are more progressive about sexuality says that it should not matter as sexuality is fluid. However, making the argument for sexual fluidity could make homosexuality a target for the cultural war.

My worry is that is people will call me a degenerate. Or that politicians will argue gay people shouldn’t have rights because they ruin the moral fabric of society. If sexuality is indeed fluid, wouldn’t it make sense for society to create an environment where the majority of people are heterosexual? The whole reason why homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, was accepted is that people thought homos were born that way and the economy was in good shape.

Reactionaries and moral reformers also argue that as a civilization declines that they become sexually loose. How many of us have had heard that homosexuality was the emblematic of the fall of ancient empires?

 

[blazehourning]

Na. When talking about fluidity, people aren't saying that someone can be straight one day and gay the next. Sexuality, for the majority, is a journey. Someone might experience kinky butt stuff by way of experimentation and might figure out that they are bisexual or hetroflexable. This doesn't make their wanting for men a downfall of society.

 

[deleted29181791]

Na. When talking about fluidity, people aren't saying that someone can be straight one day and gay the next. Sexuality, for the majority, is a journey. Someone might experience kinky butt stuff by way of experimentation and might figure out that they are bisexual or hetroflexable. This doesn't make their wanting for men a downfall of society.

Exactly. Conservatives themselves have never and never will accept the argument that sexuality is fluid, it goes against their core beliefs. Sure, they believe you can pray the gay away in conversion camps but they don't see it as a two-way street because that would mean that any red-blooded, God-fearing straight man could one day wake up as a gay, and they'd rather eat shit than believe that.

My worry is that is people will call me a degenerate. Or that politicians will argue gay people shouldn’t have rights because they ruin the moral fabric of society.

Conservatives will do that regardless, without the need for the sexual fluidity argument.

My hot take, however, is that the whole gender politics discourse from the left in recent years did a lot of damage to the cause in the sense that it confused and messed up the conversation. Like OP said, people (not conservatives, but people at large) at least understood the idea of homosexuality. They even understood the idea of trans people, as people who were born with the wrong sex. There was even a medical validity to that with concepts like "gender dysmorphia." It was clear, it was straightforward.

But then came the non-binaries with their pronouns and the conversation got harder to follow, even within the lgbt community itself as nb people argue that they should fall under the trans umbrella. So now someone who underwent a sex reassignment surgery and goes out into the world experiencing the worst kind of bigotry on the daily is the same as a cis teen that one decided she was going to go by "they"? Sorry, but I disagree. And to be clear, I'm not blaming nb people, they obviously have the right to exist and make their presence heard. And of course, conservatives gonna conservative, always. But damn if the rise of the nb discourse didn't give conservatives their most dangerous and successful culture war ammo in decades. And who ended up paying the price? The trans and the gays. The people who can't choose to simply remove a pronoun in order to fit in.

 

[Sagittarius84]

So maybe a different perspective...I think things like homosexuality get blamed for societal collapse because they become that much more...visible? in lieu of what really drives the heart of the sexuality matter, the breakdown of the heterosexual marketplace, social and family structure. I think every demographic outside of the heterosexual gets the trickle down of our dysfunction and thus become scapegoated targets when, if the schism between heterosexual men and women could be reconciled socioeconomically, sexually, and family wise, a lot of this stuff would even itself out.

 

[chrisrobin]

I dont think I'm sexually fluid, the thought of poking a pussy is enough to make me ...

 

[Smallteaplant]

I dont think I'm sexually fluid, the thought of poking a pussy is enough to make me ...

Do it.


@Urien i would love to hear your thoughts. Care to share your insights?

 

[Smallteaplant]

So maybe a different perspective...I think things like homosexuality get blamed for societal collapse because they become that much more...visible? in lieu of what really drives the heart of the sexuality matter, the breakdown of the heterosexual marketplace, social and family structure. I think every demographic outside of the heterosexual gets the trickle down of our dysfunction and thus become scapegoated targets when, if the schism between heterosexual men and women could be reconciled socioeconomically, sexually, and family wise, a lot of this stuff would even itself out.

What do you think of the sexuality police? I feel like they’re going overboard. I like you as you tend to come off as analytical and rational.

 

[deleted29181791]

So maybe a different perspective...I think things like homosexuality get blamed for societal collapse because they become that much more...visible? in lieu of what really drives the heart of the sexuality matter, the breakdown of the heterosexual marketplace, social and family structure. I think every demographic outside of the heterosexual gets the trickle down of our dysfunction and thus become scapegoated targets when, if the schism between heterosexual men and women could be reconciled socioeconomically, sexually, and family wise, a lot of this stuff would even itself out.

There's truth to that. Every single minority group is bound to become a scapegoat eventually. In recent years, conservatives dug around in their box of greatest hits and decided it was the gays' turn again. There was no AIDS epidemic this time, but gender discourse was getting too confused, too polarizing, too hard to follow, so that provided the foothold conservatives needed to reignite a latent homophobia that was more or less dormant. That, and going hard after trans people.

 

[Smallteaplant]

So we're officially in a new era. The whole push for sexual fluidity is making these conversations hard.

 

[NG_Smiley]

The whole reason why homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, was accepted is that people thought homos were born that way and the economy was in good shape.

Can someone please explain to me why the economy being in a good shape was a factor in making male homosexuality more accepted socially??? I don't see the correlation and would really appreciate it if somebody would help me understand the connection OP was talking about, Thanks in advance!

Plus, I want to add that people that are homophobic or transphobic are gonna be weird and terrible people either way so I find it hard to find the purpose of blaming the whole "sexuality is actually fluid and not everyone is born gay" argumant, just my opinion tho and maybe I'm completely wrong lol.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Can someone please explain to me why the economy being in a good shape was a factor in making male homosexuality more accepted socially?

A good economy implies a healthy percentage of heterosexual men are deemed socioeconomically attractive by the opposite sex, wherein an economy in lesser shape means a lack thereof. In a space of lack both men and women seem to instinctually become averse to situations which would make the hetero mating and dating market scarce. Hence why female homosexuality is rarely attacked socially...it's a non factor in most mens attraction to women, wherein even if there are positive ideological and social alignments it's a definite factor when it comes to women's sexual attraction to men.

 

[Sagittarius84]

What do you think of the sexuality police? I feel like they’re going overboard. I like you as you tend to come off as analytical and rational

I understand the urge, even if I disagree with the methodology it's practiced with.
I do think a big part of the overall strife, a trickle down from heterosexual dysfunction, is that a lot of non hetero sexualities are recruiting from corrupted pools. I think a lot of the dyed in the wool lesbians can attest to the "try sexual" bi women that take advantage of society's pass for women's sexual fluidity by taking "advantage" of the largely consequence and obligation free sex and attention from women, where they would actually have to have some skin in the game or exerrt more effort to get it from men. I think there are a lot of gynocentrically effeminate gay men that don't do great for a general definition of masculinity, that should probably be trans women, and a lot of trans women that would otherwise be gay men if they could reconcile their desires with their purported roles.
I think there are a lot of "gay men" that are really just undesirable straight men seeking intimacy....
I could go on and on in the overlap between sexualities that tend to get the policing efforts turned up but I think its a general response to the trickle down dysfunction I described earlier.

 

[dreamer20]

I think some homosexuals here feel sexuality is innate and immutable. People who are progressive say sexuality should not matter as sexuality is fluid. However, making the argument for sexual fluidity could make homosexuality a target for the cultural war.
Politicians will argue gay people shouldn’t have rights because they ruin the moral fabric of society. The whole reason why homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, was accepted is that people thought homos were born that way and the economy was in good shape. Reactionaries and moral reformers also argue that as a civilization declines that they become sexually loose. How many of us have had heard that homosexuality was the emblematic of the fall of ancient empires?

You are obsessed with an idea - being proponents of "fluid sexuality" will suddenly cause homosexuality to be a "culture war" target. Yet in reality anti-m2m sex Christian religious conservatives made that sexual practice a cultural war issue for thousands of years. And Religious based, anti-gay movements continue to this day:

https://www.lpsg.com/threads/christian-with-gay-feelings.6925331/post-109524081


@JJJason27 , please reconsider your decision to leave lpsg.

 

[Smallteaplant]

You are obsessed with an idea - being proponents of "fluid sexuality" will suddenly cause homosexuality to be a "culture war" target. Yet in reality anti-m2m sex Christian religious conservatives made that sexual practice a cultural war issue for thousands of years. And Religious based, anti-gay movements continue to this day:

https://www.lpsg.com/threads/christian-with-gay-feelings.6925331/post-109524081


@JJJason27 , please reconsider your decision to leave lpsg.

I don't care for Christians like that. My concern is with the fence-sitters or people on the center-right. Looking at history without the bias from religion, people treated homosexuality differently depending on the context. Yes, Abrahamic faiths tend to be against homosexuality. However, the treatment and punishment of homosexuals tend to vary by religion, country, period, and the homosexual's background.

I guess I don't believe in homosexual liberation. My true concern is coming out unshattered.


sources
Forbidden Desire in Early Modern Europe review – Christianity’s barbaric war against homosexuality

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-New-York-Culture-1890-1940/dp/0465026214

Bad Gays

 

[Sagittarius84]

I also find it interesting that in a lot of non 1st world or Western locales where homosexuality or transexuality aren't necessarily protected in codified law, that they occur without incident or too much official or social oversight provided it happens in private or specifically designated areas...and I think that has to do with a more concrete understanding, and adherence to heterosexual gender roles and obligations, as pertaining to their respective cultures.

 

[heinz.friedrich]

Conservatives themselves have never and never will accept the argument that sexuality is fluid, it goes against their core beliefs. Sure, they believe you can pray the gay away in conversion camps but they don't see it as a two-way street because that would mean that any red-blooded, God-fearing straight man could one day wake up as a gay, and they'd rather eat shit than believe that.

It depends with whom you speak. God is omnipresent and can be in more places at one time. He can be male, female, androgyn etc.

So you learn that in your development sooner or later. In revelation or in the new testament there is somewhere a passage that Jesus transform the body of the believers to become like him.

That means basically you decide what you are: your appearance, race, gender, your species etc. And you can be everything, everywhere and all at once.

That means you can just change your appearance and basically change your sexual orientation.

 

[heinz.friedrich]

However, making the argument for sexual fluidity could make homosexuality a target for the cultural war.

Some people think it is a sin. But you should also love the sinner.

That would basically be the same as to judge somebody because he is addicted to his or her computer or mobile phone.

Of course, you know that you can be addicted to this stuff. But there is no study that says if homosexuality is a sin or something like that at the moment. You just cannot say it. So there has to be more studies on that topic.

But if you could prove it, they would not treat homosexuality differently. At least if they take their religon seriously.

The judgement of sinners is what Jesus criticized. You becoeme even more negative through this judgement because you fail to love your neighbour. It is harmful to judge the sinner.

If sexuality is indeed fluid, wouldn’t it make sense for society to create an environment where the majority of people are heterosexual?

Yes. If you want more children it makes more sense. Also the abolishment of abortion makes not sense but that has nothing to do with religion. It makes economically sense. You want a vibrrant economy and therefore you need children.

Reactionaries and moral reformers also argue that as a civilization declines that they become sexually loose.

In my opinion, Sexually loose is if you have a lot of sex and it tends to sex addiction. That is not necessarily gay. I dont know if gay people are more addicted to sex or not.

How many of us have had heard that homosexuality was the emblematic of the fall of ancient empires?

Some of those fallen empires were also against homosexuality. The Third Reich for example.

 

[Smallteaplant]

Some people think it is a sin. But you should also love the sinner.

That would basically be the same as to judge somebody because he is addicted to his or her computer or mobile phone.

Of course, you know that you can be addicted to this stuff. But there is no study that says if homosexuality is a sin or something like that at the moment. You just cannot say it. So there has to be more studies on that topic.

But if you could prove it, they would not treat homosexuality differently. At least if they take their religon seriously.

The judgement of sinners is what Jesus criticized. You becoeme even more negative through this judgement because you fail to love your neighbour. It is harmful to judge the sinner.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am going by the history of homosexuality in the West. Most people don't actually practice what you describe. It's best to go by past actions whether then idealial actions.

 

[elklindoxxx]

I think that some of the homosexuals here are concerned about the sexuality because they feel that sexuality is innate and immutable. People who are more progressive about sexuality says that it should not matter as sexuality is fluid. However, making the argument for sexual fluidity could make homosexuality a target for the cultural war.

My worry is that is people will call me a degenerate. Or that politicians will argue gay people shouldn’t have rights because they ruin the moral fabric of society. If sexuality is indeed fluid, wouldn’t it make sense for society to create an environment where the majority of people are heterosexual? The whole reason why homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, was accepted is that people thought homos were born that way and the economy was in good shape.

Reactionaries and moral reformers also argue that as a civilization declines that they become sexually loose. How many of us have had heard that homosexuality was the emblematic of the fall of ancient empires?

My two cents.....

Certain people want to label homosexuals as deviants because they see it as a challenge to the status quo. They have this need to get people to conform to what they deem as being acceptable behavior. That is straight and monogamous. So my partner and I who are neither straight nor monogamous...are supposed to be a cause of the degradation of society. I'm not buying it...

 

[Acratopotes]

I think that some of the homosexuals here are concerned about the sexuality because they feel that sexuality is innate and immutable. People who are more progressive about sexuality says that it should not matter as sexuality is fluid. However, making the argument for sexual fluidity could make homosexuality a target for the cultural war.

Fritz Klein, in his book "The Bisexual Option" proposed the idea of sexuality changing over time but, of course, that is a book about bisexuality. It is entirely plausible that range of what arouses someone is innate, but which bit of that range they are expressing at any given time can vary according to who they meet and what they discover about themselves.

But yes, it has occurred to me that there may be more to discover in this area and the "born that way" argument may not be on secure ground. I get the reason people have backed that argument. We have a general idea in society that people are accountable for their behaviour but not the luck of their birth. We've made discriminating, in certain situations, on grounds of skin colour, sex, age etc. illegal because these are characteristics beyond the control of the person concerned and sexual orientation has been added to that set.

To me, though, a better argument is that who people love, who they have sex with, and what kind of sex they have, should be down to those individuals and not something the wider society needs to, or should, impose control over, other than the requirement that it is consensual.

I don't imagine the number of people who don't end up having children because of not wanting a straight relationship is that much increased as a result of a more open minded society. The reduction of birth rate in the west is because (mostly straight) couples are choosing to have fewer children than they did and the reasons for that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.