What Would You Consider Baseless Homophobic Stereotypes?

[spaj8987]

In another thread i was just accused of having peddled baseless homophobic stereotypes.

To which i asked the person to prove exactly when i did so. Which got me to thinking. What are some baseless homophobic stereotypes? Now right from the start i'll admit that my opinion is that all stereotypes are baseless. Considering the very definition of the word. It doesn't have nor need a base in anything.

(In social psychology, a stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, or ability.)

The second anyone begins to over generalize about anyone else it automatically (to me) loses it's grounds in anything. I'm still curious though. What would you consider to be a homophobic stereotype? And what would you consider just a generalization of gay men?

If me asking about as much goes against the rules in any way i apologize. And once told will edit where needed.

 

[englad]

Painting gay men as sexual predators, which is what you did.

 

[Brodie888]

Well, it should be fairly obvious. A homophobic stereotype is a generalization that has the intent to throw shade on gay people. A baseless homophobic stereotype is something that has been linked to gay men due to homophobia without any evidence to substantiate it.

Examples of BASELESS stereotypes are:

* Gays were all molested as children.
* Gays have bad relations with their fathers or had a domineering mothers.
* Gays are not as good parents as straight couples
*Gays are child molesters
*Gay marriage will lead to polygamy, incest, beastiality etc.
*Gay relationships are unnatural
* God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

 

[spaj8987]

Painting gay men as sexual predators, which is what you did.

Prove it. Prove that i painted all gay men as being anything. I'm going to show you something interesting. Look at brodie888's reply. What's missing from all those? They are for sure implications. In those statements the person is making overall generalizations about gay men. And letting the person reading put the rest of the pieces in. Knowing that most people will place taught homophobic ideas into the missing parts. Now this is what you've personally said about me based on your own opinions.

(I think your arguments regarding bias, ignorance and prejudicial motives may have held more water if you hadn't personally peddled baseless homophobic stereotypes in other threads.)

You said i peddled baseless homophobic stereotypes. This is what you presented as an example of me doing so.

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys. No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are. Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends. Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

What's the difference here? Between what i said and what brodie888 said? Is there a difference?

In bodie888's reply they created examples in which there were missing information. Something that the reader could misconstrue based on their own ideas of what it means to be gay. As another example (and to anyone reading this i'm only doing this because he replied) lets use black men instead of gay men.

Black men grow up without a father.
Black men are violent.
Black men have bad credit.

What's left out? These are without doubt stereotypes but what's left out? Details. Details are left out. Generally speaking when someone is casually talking about a subject and they forget or don't put...not all blank in, it's acceptable based on how they've spoken about other issues or other categories of people in the past. Or is deemed unacceptable because of how they've spoken in the past. When there isn't an expectation of wrong doing or malice generally people don't notice or point it out. In the example i just made with black men we've heard it before. From the kinds of people who regularly attack black men. So we know odds are very good they mean all.

Again. Did i do that? Lets check my comment again.

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys. No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are. Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends. Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

Did i leave out details? Or did i add extra details to make sure people understood what and who i was talking about?

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for)

Is that a fact? So far did i add enough information so you knew who i was talking about, why i was talking about them and who i wasn't talking about? Lets go further.

(No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't)

With that statement there was i saying that all gay men were something? Or was it me adding detail to what i said so people could understand exactly who i was talking about and why?

(but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are.)

Does a lot mean all? Also, is this accurate? Are there a lot of gay and bisexual men who don't take no for an answer? Not only when talking about women, gay men and bisexual men but also straight men? How many comments, threads, replies and so on do you think i could find and present to prove this point from this site alone? Right, lets continue.

(Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends.)

Am i wrong here? When it comes to the amount of gay and bisexual men who do this compared to the amount of lesbian and bisexual women who do this isn't the totals very unbalanced?

(Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

Again, did i add details here? Did i add information? Did i say it was disgusting because it was two men doing it? Or did i say it's because it was done in such a way that would without doubt hurt someone else? Here. I'll add even more information. It's right off the bat disgusting because people's feelings will enviably get hurt. If the person is in a casual relationship with someone else that other person will get hurt. If they're married even more so. And it gets even worse if the person cheating has kids. Making it more and more disgusting the more people who get hurt by it. Lets go back a bit though. To the point in which i think you took honest offense.

(aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys.)

Again, am i wrong? Are men in general not known for being more of those things than women? On this site, which category of people are known for not taking no for an answer so much that there have been multiple threads created on the subject? With those guys joining said threads and making them even worse.

Heres another thing. I used casual language in that comment. What i did not say was that gay or bisexual men were rapists. I said they were rapey. As in comments and threads to the tone of...how can you know you don't like sucking dick if you've never tried. That by any and all accounts is rapey.

For anyone who might have gotten this far. I replied to this person in another thread. Had zero intention of doing so here until they followed. They actually made me curious because i didn't think gay and bisexual men thought the same. And it made me wonder if i might have missed something.

So if you still feel like replying, please do. I think it might help other straight people get a better understanding of where they might have gone wrong. And thanks for reading. I know i talk a lot.

 

[1225108]

The definition provided above by @Brodie888 is a good definition. It points out generalisation as being part of homophobic thoughts, beliefs and actions, including statements.
I don't agree with the part of the definition that says there has to be the intent to throw shade on gay people. It's a bit too legalistic in my taste (no offence intended @Brodie888) while the homophobic condition has a socio-psychological cause.

Intent goes to motive and will only make the sad loser that makes homophobic slurs to come up with useless excuses.
Like by desperately providing a base for why that person would be validated in their negative attitudes and actions.
e.g. What Would You Consider Baseless Homophobic Stereotypes?

Or it would make such a homophobe re-frase their words to make the homophobia harder to spot.

A homophobic person will see anything that a LGBTQI person says or does as a justification for their homophobia.

Bigoted idiots that are homophobic probably have no idea themselves as to why they are a homophobe.
They can only be considered to be mentally challenged because they lack the ability to sympathise or empathise with anyone that seems different from themselves.


They do usually consider themselves superior because they are straight.
Almost always they have a very clear picture of what it means to be a 'real man' or a 'real woman'.

It's why I like the word 'Queer' as it transcends those narrow and confining definitions and gender-roles assigned by society.

It also has the added benefit that everyone is allowed to like either penis, pussy, ass or all the aforementioned.

 

[Brodie888]

Prove it. Prove that i painted all gay men as being anything. I'm going to show you something interesting. Look at brodie888's reply. What's missing from all those? They are for sure implications. In those statements the person is making overall generalizations about gay men. And letting the person reading put the rest of the pieces in. Knowing that most people will place taught homophobic ideas into the missing parts. Now this is what you've personally said about me based on your own opinions.

(I think your arguments regarding bias, ignorance and prejudicial motives may have held more water if you hadn't personally peddled baseless homophobic stereotypes in other threads.)

You said i peddled baseless homophobic stereotypes. This is what you presented as an example of me doing so.

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys. No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are. Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends. Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

What's the difference here? Between what i said and what brodie888 said? Is there a difference?

In bodie888's reply they created examples in which there were missing information. Something that the reader could misconstrue based on their own ideas of what it means to be gay. As another example (and to anyone reading this i'm only doing this because he replied) lets use black men instead of gay men.

Black men grow up without a father.
Black men are violent.
Black men have bad credit.

What's left out? These are without doubt stereotypes but what's left out? Details. Details are left out. Generally speaking when someone is casually talking about a subject and they forget or don't put...not all blank in, it's acceptable based on how they've spoken about other issues or other categories of people in the past. Or is deemed unacceptable because of how they've spoken in the past. When there isn't an expectation of wrong doing or malice generally people don't notice or point it out. In the example i just made with black men we've heard it before. From the kinds of people who regularly attack black men. So we know odds are very good they mean all.

Again. Did i do that? Lets check my comment again.

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys. No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are. Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends. Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

Did i leave out details? Or did i add extra details to make sure people understood what and who i was talking about?

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for)

Is that a fact? So far did i add enough information so you knew who i was talking about, why i was talking about them and who i wasn't talking about? Lets go further.

(No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't)

With that statement there was i saying that all gay men were something? Or was it me adding detail to what i said so people could understand exactly who i was talking about and why?

(but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are.)

Does a lot mean all? Also, is this accurate? Are there a lot of gay and bisexual men who don't take no for an answer? Not only when talking about women, gay men and bisexual men but also straight men? How many comments, threads, replies and so on do you think i could find and present to prove this point from this site alone? Right, lets continue.

(Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends.)

Am i wrong here? When it comes to the amount of gay and bisexual men who do this compared to the amount of lesbian and bisexual women who do this isn't the totals very unbalanced?

(Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

Again, did i add details here? Did i add information? Did i say it was disgusting because it was two men doing it? Or did i say it's because it was done in such a way that would without doubt hurt someone else? Here. I'll add even more information. It's right off the bat disgusting because people's feelings will enviably get hurt. If the person is in a casual relationship with someone else that other person will get hurt. If they're married even more so. And it gets even worse if the person cheating has kids. Making it more and more disgusting the more people who get hurt by it. Lets go back a bit though. To the point in which i think you took honest offense.

(aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys.)

Again, am i wrong? Are men in general not known for being more of those things than women? On this site, which category of people are known for not taking no for an answer so much that there have been multiple threads created on the subject? With those guys joining said threads and making them even worse.

Heres another thing. I used casual language in that comment. What i did not say was that gay or bisexual men were rapists. I said they were rapey. As in comments and threads to the tone of...how can you know you don't like sucking dick if you've never tried. That by any and all accounts is rapey.

For anyone who might have gotten this far. I replied to this person in another thread. Had zero intention of doing so here until they followed. They actually made me curious because i didn't think gay and bisexual men thought the same. And it made me wonder if i might have missed something.

So if you still feel like replying, please do. I think it might help other straight people get a better understanding of where they might have gone wrong. And thanks for reading. I know i talk a lot.

You may not have intended offense but I can see why you could have offended some people.

You've attributed negative characteristics because of someone's sexual orientation. But is it the fact that they are gay or the fact that they are men which makes them more "creepy, underhanded and downright rapey" than women?

 

[1225108]

Had zero intention of doing so here until they followed.

M'lady...

 

[1345864]

I would add the cartoonish stereotype of gay men being effete, mincing wusses. I've met plenty of 100% gay dudes who were grittier and rougher than Sam Elliott covered in 40 grit sandpaper. This has been promulgated by Hollywood and television shows, and it's demonstrably untrue.

On gays being predatory and taking advantage of others sexually: I don't think it's a gay thing; it's an aggressive male thing. How many straight guys take advantage of women passed out drunk or slip them roofies?

Gay/bisexual men are like any other group of people; some are decent, others are predatory slimeballs. No better, no worse.

 

[1225108]

I would add the cartoonish stereotype of gay men being effete, mincing wusses. I've met plenty of 100% gay dudes who were grittier and rougher than Sam Elliott covered in 40 grit sandpaper. This has been promulgated by Hollywood and television shows, and it's demonstrably untrue.

On gays being predatory and taking advantage of others sexually: I don't think it's a gay thing; it's an aggressive male thing. How many straight guys take advantage of women passed out drunk or slip them roofies?

Gay/bisexual men are like any other group of people; some are decent, others are predatory slimeballs. No better, no worse.

I don't feel predatory behaviour is exclusively a male thing either, actually. It might be have something to do with stronger preying ont he weak. And generally there might be more men in power than women are. Besides on average being physically stronger.
But people are people.

 

[spaj8987]

You may not have intended offense but I can see why you could have offended some people.

You've attributed negative characteristics because of someone's sexual orientation. But is it the fact that they are gay or the fact that they are men which makes them more "creepy, underhanded and downright rapey" than women?

Did i attribute it to gay men though? Or did i say there's a larger number of gay/bisexual men who are creepy vs lesbian and bisexual women? I can see where you're coming from but i didn't say those men were creepy because they were gay/bi i said there were creepy gay/bi men. Which is not only true but provable.

Also, i stated they were creepy for not knowing how to take no for an answer. To be more precise i meant the...everyone is a little gay gay/bisexual men. The ones who will continue to question another man's straightness based off of this misguided theory that we're all a little attracted to our same sex.

And the reason i call it misguided is because there's nothing wrong with a guy finding another man attractive. Problem is a man finding another man attractive does not automatically equate to them being any amount gay or bisexual.

When it comes to women commenting on how attractive another woman is it's never attributed to sex or sexuality. Here though with the that specific theory and with gay/bi/men in the closet it is automatically when it comes to straight men.

Which then falls into the same territory as a man finding out a woman is a lesbian then saying we're all a little straight (all you need is some good dick, etc). It dismisses the person's feelings, history, etc. Disrespects them and becomes very very creepy the more it's pushed. And is only a couple very steps from gay conversation therapy. Or the theories behind it.

I also expressly said that it was disgusting. Specifically detailing that it wasn't because they were gay or bi but because they weren't respecting other human beings. Again, going so far as to express that it wasn't the act itself.

After someone replied with a similar question. Yes, it's because it's men. Problem is the thread wasn't about just men. It was about the women of the site doing something wrong. Or at least that's what it became because the men who started the thread were categorically wrong in what they were both saying and implying about women of the site.

At that point it became about the different treatment between those two sexes. With me pointing to how gay/bisexual men of the site get away with way way way more than the women of the site. My examples of that were and are how gay and bisexual men of the site have free reign to be creepy in general. And do so more often.

If you want to talk about why that is? We can. Sexism. Hundreds upon hundreds of years of sexism doesn't just evaporate because a guy was either born gay/bisexual or decided to become gay or bisexual. That's where the creepiness comes from. So in that we agree.

The problem is though the context in which it was discussed and the interruption of it. In another thread i pointed to why men are more overly emotional than women. How the stereotype of women being emotional was created by overly emotional men. The effects of sexism. How even gay and bisexual men grow accustomed to it and so on. If you want to talk more about that then i'm game.

Before all that though. I suggest you check out the thread in which started all this.

Female Hobosexuals

 

[1225108]

Hundreds upon hundreds of years of sexism doesn't just evaporate because a guy was either born gay/bisexual or decided to become gay or bisexual.

"(...) or decided to become gay or bisexual"...?

One cannot 'choose' to feel attracted to someone or fall in love with someone of one or another gender.

This reasoning (it's a choice or life-style) is used in homophobic milieus that sometimes offer - psychological extremely harmful - gay-aversion therapies or are against homosexual praxis on religious grounds. It denies that homosexual or bisexual feelings and behaviour are just natural and occur in a lot of species, including humans. This statement does - as @Brodie888 so beautifully formulated it - 'throw shade on gay people'.

More bluntly as I'd put it:

• Calling it a choice someone decides on, is at the very least extremely stupid.
• This might not be full-on homophobia when read literally, but even if not you're cutting it dangerously close.
• And apparently you've been hold to account on earlier statements you made that some considered to have been homophobic, M'lady

As I said earlier:

Or it would make such a homophobe re-frase their words to make the homophobia harder to spot.

So there might be a homophobic pattern in your thoughts, based on reading your own contributions to different threads here on LPSG.

 

[spaj8987]

"(...) or decided to become gay or bisexual"...?

One cannot 'choose' to feel attracted to someone or fall in love with someone of one or another gender.

This reasoning (it's a choice or life-style) is used in homophobic milieus that sometimes offer - psychological extremely harmful - gay-aversion therapies or are against homosexual praxis on religious grounds. It denies that homosexual or bisexual feelings and behaviour are just natural and occur in a lot of species, including humans. This statement does - as @Brodie888 so beautifully formulated it - 'throw shade on gay people'.

More bluntly as I'd put it:

• Calling it a choice someone decides on, is at the very least extremely stupid.
• This might not be full-on homophobia when read literally, but even if not you're cutting it dangerously close.
• And apparently you've been hold to account on earlier statements you made that some considered to have been homophobic, M'lady

As I said earlier:


So there might be a homophobic pattern in your thoughts, based on reading your own contributions to different threads here on LPSG.

Gonna stop ignoring you now. Because this i think is very very important. We all know that someone can be and a lot of times are born gay, born bisexual and born trans. We as human beings have established that a good while ago. While the rest of human beings have yet to fully accept that it's a statistical fact.

What people might not realize is that someone can and a lot of people do..decide to be gay, bi or trans. You seem to disagree. Which i would ask. Why not? Why can't someone decide to be gay? Why can't they decide to be bi? Why can't they decide to be trans?

What bodily laws on the face of this earth not only state but have the resources necessary to stop a person from doing that? Is it like the laws of gravity? Where if a person decides they want to be gay, bi or trans that some physical force prevents them from doing so?

Are there some sort of governmental laws that state and enforce that? Where if a person says they are or want to be blank then they are and should be arrested for doing so?

If you personally think there is and should be. Then wouldn't that move you much further to gay conversation therapy than you say i am? Wouldn't that then move you closer to putting a pink marking on those people than you say i am?

No. There is no reason why a person can't or shouldn't be able to decide what their sexuality is or will be. And no one should be able to stop them.

Don't get me wrong. If there are health concerns involved then of course they should be provided with as much information as they may need to make a decision based on their health. How to go about it, what medicines they may need, how much it might cost and so on. But no one and i mean no one should make that decision for them. They can't make that decision for them and shouldn't. Ever.

 

[1225108]

Gonna stop ignoring you now. Because this i think is very very important. We all know that someone can be and a lot of times are born gay, born bisexual and born trans. We as human beings have established that a good while ago. While the rest of human beings have yet to fully accept that it's a statistical fact.

What people might not realize is that someone can and a lot of people do..decide to be gay, bi or trans. You seem to disagree. Which i would ask. Why not? Why can't someone decide to be gay? Why can't they decide to be bi? Why can't they decide to be trans?

What bodily laws on the face of this earth not only state but have the resources necessary to stop a person from doing that? Is it like the laws of gravity? Where if a person decides they want to be gay, bi or trans that some physical force prevents them from doing so?

Are there some sort of governmental laws that state and enforce that? Where if a person says they are or want to be blank then they are and should be arrested for doing so?

If you personally think there is and should be. Then wouldn't that move you much further to gay conversation therapy than you say i am? Wouldn't that then move you closer to putting a pink marking on those people than you say i am?

No. There is no reason why a person can't or shouldn't be able to decide what their sexuality is or will be. And no one should be able to stop them.

Don't get me wrong. If there are health concerns involved then of course they should be provided with as much information as they may need to make a decision based on their health. How to go about it, what medicines they may need, how much it might cost and so on. But no one and i mean no one should make that decision for them. They can't make that decision for them and shouldn't. Ever.

I've just reported this post with the following text:

"This statement is not only homophobic. More importantly when someone struggling to come out reads this and takes it seriously; it might be psychologically harmful."

 

[1225108]

Among other professional mental health guidelines, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) include:

"Guideline 3.
Psychologists understand that same-sex attractions, feelings, and behavior are normal variants of human sexuality and that efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be effective or safe."

(Emphasis added by me on the word 'safe').

Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients

 

[englad]

I've had to delete a chunk at the beginning of your post, otherwise the response goes well over the 10000 character limit.

What's the difference here? Between what i said and what brodie888 said? Is there a difference?

In bodie888's reply they created examples in which there were missing information. Something that the reader could misconstrue based on their own ideas of what it means to be gay. As another example (and to anyone reading this i'm only doing this because he replied) lets use black men instead of gay men.

Black men grow up without a father.
Black men are violent.
Black men have bad credit.


What's left out? These are without doubt stereotypes but what's left out? Details. Details are left out. Generally speaking when someone is casually talking about a subject and they forget or don't put...not all blank in, it's acceptable based on how they've spoken about other issues or other categories of people in the past. Or is deemed unacceptable because of how they've spoken in the past. When there isn't an expectation of wrong doing or malice generally people don't notice or point it out. In the example i just made with black men we've heard it before. From the kinds of people who regularly attack black men. So we know odds are very good they mean all.

I think though if a white person went out of their way to talk about lots of black men being like that and implying a majority or significant minority, it would have a similar ring to it as implying all would. Because it comes back to someone from a majority group suggesting there is something inherently wrong with that minority group. As such, I would suspect any white person's motives for painting black people as inherently following those stereotypes you listed, it's not the business of them to do so.

Again. Did i do that? Lets check my comment again.


(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys. No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are. Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends. Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

You went out of your way to emphasis lots, even doubling down with in on the "I mean a lot".

Did i leave out details? Or did i add extra details to make sure people understood what and who i was talking about?

(Plus, lesbians/bisexual women aren't nearly as known for)

Is that a fact? So far did i add enough information so you knew who i was talking about, why i was talking about them and who i wasn't talking about? Lets go further.

As far as comparing numbers of creepy gay and bisexual men versus lesbian bisexual women, yes, there are (I doubt it's on the same level of creepy straight men). There are also higher rates of domestic violence between female same sex couples than between male same sex couples. I certainly wouldn't go around painting *a lot* of lesbian/bisexual women as being inherently violent on that basis. And I would particularly not do that if I were a straight person, as it would seem like I have an axe to grind.

(No offense to the gay and bi guys out there who aren't)

With that statement there was i saying that all gay men were something? Or was it me adding detail to what i said so people could understand exactly who i was talking about and why?

You don't need to imply all, if you're placing a hefty emphasis on a lot, it's easy enough to infer you're talking about the majority or at least a large minority. That's certainly how it sounds.

(but there are a lot and i mean a lot who are.)

Does a lot mean all? Also, is this accurate? Are there a lot of gay and bisexual men who don't take no for an answer? Not only when talking about women, gay men and bisexual men but also straight men? How many comments, threads, replies and so on do you think i could find and present to prove this point from this site alone? Right, lets continue.

A lot has a very similar implication to all, especially so if you go out of your way to emphasise it. It smacks of a notion of inherency.

(Pretty sure there are more suck buddies out there than there are lick friends.)

Am i wrong here? When it comes to the amount of gay and bisexual men who do this compared to the amount of lesbian and bisexual women who do this isn't the totals very unbalanced?

The sucky buddy/using a cocksucker mentality is a better descriptor of how internalised homophobia plays out with some (most commonly) bisexual men than over some sort of moral degeneracy you're implying. In other words, by reducing the man they're dealing with to a sexual organ they're interacting with. Placing the focus on the sexual act enables them to detach underlying emotions from it. Internalised homophobia within women tends to play out differently. But it's got fuck all to do with being "rapey" though. And regardless of what you call a fuck buddy/friend with benefits, it's the same result and fuck buddies/friends with benefits exist across the sexuality/gender spectrum.

(Which right off the bat is disgusting. Not because of the sexual act but because it's always behind someone else's back.)

Again, did i add details here? Did i add information? Did i say it was disgusting because it was two men doing it? Or did i say it's because it was done in such a way that would without doubt hurt someone else? Here. I'll add even more information. It's right off the bat disgusting because people's feelings will enviably get hurt. If the person is in a casual relationship with someone else that other person will get hurt. If they're married even more so. And it gets even worse if the person cheating has kids. Making it more and more disgusting the more people who get hurt by it. Lets go back a bit though. To the point in which i think you took honest offense.

People cheat for all kinds of reasons, and cheaters come across the gender/sexuality spectrum as well. Plenty of them are fully heterosexual, who didn't even have the excuse of finding it very difficult to come out of the closet.

(aren't nearly as known for being creepy, underhanded and downright rapey as certain kinds of gay and bi guys.)

Again, am i wrong? Are men in general not known for being more of those things than women? On this site, which category of people are known for not taking no for an answer so much that there have been multiple threads created on the subject? With those guys joining said threads and making them even worse.

Yes, men are known for those things more than women are (though I do know that in those cases with a female perp, victims of any gender aren't taken seriously). Except in the offline world, where the topic of male-male sexual assault perpetrators' sexual orientation is discussed, statistics point to straight identifying men being a majority.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default...packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

https://www.una.edu/assault/males.pdf

This means it's dodgy to shine such a hefty spotlight on gay men being rapey and creepy, when the statistics point the other way, and especially coming from someone who's straight. That's particularly the case, given the baseless stereotype in question of "gay men = sexual predators" has been used multiple times throughout the world to push through homophobic legislation.

another thing. I used casual language in that comment. What i did not say was that gay or bisexual men were rapists. I said they were rapey. As in comments and threads to the tone of...how can you know you don't like sucking dick if you've never tried. That by any and all accounts is rapey.

That sounds more like trolling than rapey, gay and bisexual men make up a hefty percentage of the site, so taking the tiny percentage of those who create those threads (IMHO, probably exclusively closet cases or individuals with significant levels of internalised homophobia) and equating that to mean "a lot" is quite a stretch. Also, do bear in mind that you're talking to a group who are bombarded daily with the heterosexual male gaze (and associated peer pressure growing up etc) where we've experienced similar things in reverse, it means that there is a power imbalance where a straight person on the site can simply click the x button and reenter said heteronormative world, we don't have that option.

For anyone who might have gotten this far. I replied to this person in another thread. Had zero intention of doing so here until they followed. They actually made me curious because i didn't think gay and bisexual men thought the same. And it made me wonder if i might have missed something.

So if you still feel like replying, please do. I think it might help other straight people get a better understanding of where they might have gone wrong. And thanks for reading. I know i talk a lot.

This ending is why I've decided to respond in a less adversarial manner, as I think you are open to the perspectives of others, which is welcome. I think if you had stated "a few" or "a small minority", or specified you're talking about a reasonable number of posters on this site. It wouldn't have gone down anywhere near as badly.

 

[spaj8987]

I've had to delete a chunk at the beginning of your post, otherwise the response goes well over the 10000 character limit.



I think though if a white person went out of their way to talk about lots of black men being like that and implying a majority or significant minority, it would have a similar ring to it as implying all would. Because it comes back to someone from a majority group suggesting there is something inherently wrong with that minority group. As such, I would suspect any white person's motives for painting black people as inherently following those stereotypes you listed, it's not the business of them to do so.



You went out of your way to emphasis lots, even doubling down with in on the "I mean a lot".



As far as comparing numbers of creepy gay and bisexual men versus lesbian bisexual women, yes, there are (I doubt it's on the same level of creepy straight men). There are also higher rates of domestic violence between female same sex couples than between male same sex couples. I certainly wouldn't go around painting *a lot* of lesbian/bisexual women as being inherently violent on that basis. And I would particularly not do that if I were a straight person, as it would seem like I have an axe to grind.





You don't need to imply all, if you're placing a hefty emphasis on a lot, it's easy enough to infer you're talking about the majority or at least a large minority. That's certainly how it sounds.



A lot has a very similar implication to all, especially so if you go out of your way to emphasise it. It smacks of a notion of inherency.



The sucky buddy/using a cocksucker mentality is a better descriptor of how internalised homophobia plays out with some (most commonly) bisexual men than over some sort of moral degeneracy you're implying. In other words, by reducing the man they're dealing with to a sexual organ they're interacting with. Placing the focus on the sexual act enables them to detach underlying emotions from it. Internalised homophobia within women tends to play out differently. But it's got fuck all to do with being "rapey" though. And regardless of what you call a fuck buddy/friend with benefits, it's the same result and fuck buddies/friends with benefits exist across the sexuality/gender spectrum.



People cheat for all kinds of reasons, and cheaters come across the gender/sexuality spectrum as well. Plenty of them are fully heterosexual, who didn't even have the excuse of finding it very difficult to come out of the closet.



Yes, men are known for those things more than women are (though I do know that in those cases with a female perp, victims of any gender aren't taken seriously). Except in the offline world, where the topic of male-male sexual assault perpetrators' sexual orientation is discussed, statistics point to straight identifying men being a majority.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default...packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

https://www.una.edu/assault/males.pdf

This means it's dodgy to shine such a hefty spotlight on gay men being rapey and creepy, when the statistics point the other way, and especially coming from someone who's straight. That's particularly the case, given the baseless stereotype in question of "gay men = sexual predators" has been used multiple times throughout the world to push through homophobic legislation.



That sounds more like trolling than rapey, gay and bisexual men make up a hefty percentage of the site, so taking the tiny percentage of those who create those threads (IMHO, probably exclusively closet cases or individuals with significant levels of internalised homophobia) and equating that to mean "a lot" is quite a stretch. Also, do bear in mind that you're talking to a group who are bombarded daily with the heterosexual male gaze (and associated peer pressure growing up etc) where we've experienced similar things in reverse, it means that there is a power imbalance where a straight person on the site can simply click the x button and reenter said heteronormative world, we don't have that option.



This ending is why I've decided to respond in a less adversarial manner, as I think you are open to the perspectives of others, which is welcome. I think if you had stated "a few" or "a small minority", or specified you're talking about a reasonable number of posters on this site. It wouldn't have gone down anywhere near as badly.

None of what you said about my comments are accurate. It's almost like you didn't even read them. Which seems to be a pattern. A shame since homophobic people do exist on this site.

 

[Cum_is_Great]

None of what you said about my comments are accurate. It's almost like you didn't even read them. Which seems to be a pattern. A shame since homophobic people do exist on this site.

You asked for replies and conversation and @englad gave a very detailed lengthy post which sums up very nicely his opinions and you hand waved it away. I'm now positive you are a disingenuous person and will no longer consider you arguing in good faith.

 

[spaj8987]

You asked for replies and conversation and @englad gave a very detailed lengthy post which sums up very nicely his opinions and you hand waved it away. I'm now positive you are a disingenuous person and will no longer consider you arguing in good faith.

Ok.