Why are they trying to force sexual fluidity onto gay men

[jaybee0560]

Postgay- a society where homosexuality is accepted as the norm without the cost to one's social standing. Basically, doesn't exist.

Sexual Fluidity does exist. I am not denying that. My point is that queerness and gay rights are probably incompatible. Gay rights was based on the argument that gayness was like race. Biologically determined and immutable. One of the major reasons why people don't want homosexuals around children is because they believe that homosexuality is a social contagion. Queerness argues that heterosexuality and homosexuality are essential in nature and that it's sexual constructed in nature. So you're basically arguing that homosexuality could be caught. The conservatives and Christians would love an argument like that.

I feel that gay rights is about upholding and integrating into the social order. While queerness is about breaking and undermining the social order.

You do know what the Europeans, specifically North Europeans, used forms of sexuality that outside of monogamous-heterosexual norms to justify colonizing the world. However, most societies have some form of sexual taboos and sexual restraint. And in most cultures that had up homosexuality, passive homosexuality was looked down upon. Outcast at worst, jester at best.

To me, it's about protecing gay rights even if comes at the expense of throwing other queers under the bus.

Cheers for the definition of Post Gay - literally the first time I have heard that term.
Why don't we then aim for post "whatever the term is that allows people to have any sexual nature without a cost to their social standing" post gay seems a little unambitious.

I would argue that gay rights should not be argued on the basis that gay is like race. Almost no one argues that sexuality is exclusively based on biology, and how does this even matter?

Saying sexual fluidity exists doesn't even remotely imply that gay people are sexually fluid. It doesn't imply that all people are sexually fluid - it doesn't even imply that sexual fluidity is common.

Being sexually fluid is also not something you can catch any more than being Bi or gay is something you can catch - it would simply be your sexual make up as opposed to someone elses.

I am aware that conservative Christians make some pretty terrible arguments but I would also argue that you should point out the flaws in those arguements if its rights you are interested in rather than dance around them by throwing anyone under a bus.

If you get that - I have no idea how you feel queerness is about breaking social order as opposed to gay being all about preserving social order. That's simply an attempt to make a presentation of human sexuality about something other than human sexuality - if that's the road you wanna ho - then all you are doing is pandering to whatever definition the majority is willing to define as an acceptable social order - which is what I meant by saying that queer rights and gay right leverage each other. We should be arguing to get to the point where any sexual presentation between adults is a non-issue rather than pandering to fuckwit conservative christian ideals.

I have no idea why you are telling me about the history of Europe - or any culture for that matter. Arguments that were irrational should be dismissed on the basis of that - if we can't make the argument that being anything except straight isn't acceptable on the merits of that argument - then all that means is that there is no rational argument for being anything except straight. I don't believe that and I don't see what part it plays in todays rights argument.

The executive summary here is - not being white is fine regardless of whether this is a choice. Not being straight is fine regardless of whether its a choice - not being a male is fine regardless of whether its a choice - The other point here is that representing sexual fluidity and acknowledging its existence is also fine and more importantly, does not mean every single person is sexually fluid.

 

[Smallteaplant]

Cheers for the definition of Post Gay - literally the first time I have heard that term.
Why don't we then aim for post "whatever the term is that allows people to have any sexual nature without a cost to their social standing" post gay seems a little unambitious.

I would argue that gay rights should not be argued on the basis that gay is like race. Almost no one argues that sexuality is exclusively based on biology, and how does this even matter?

Saying sexual fluidity exists doesn't even remotely imply that gay people are sexually fluid. It doesn't imply that all people are sexually fluid - it doesn't even imply that sexual fluidity is common.

Being sexually fluid is also not something you can catch any more than being Bi or gay is something you can catch - it would simply be your sexual make up as opposed to someone elses.

I am aware that conservative Christians make some pretty terrible arguments but I would also argue that you should point out the flaws in those arguements if its rights you are interested in rather than dance around them by throwing anyone under a bus.

If you get that - I have no idea how you feel queerness is about breaking social order as opposed to gay being all about preserving social order. That's simply an attempt to make a presentation of human sexuality about something other than human sexuality - if that's the road you wanna ho - then all you are doing is pandering to whatever definition the majority is willing to define as an acceptable social order - which is what I meant by saying that queer rights and gay right leverage each other. We should be arguing to get to the point where any sexual presentation between adults is a non-issue rather than pandering to fuckwit conservative christian ideals.

I have no idea why you are telling me about the history of Europe - or any culture for that matter. Arguments that were irrational should be dismissed on the basis of that - if we can't make the argument that being anything except straight isn't acceptable on the merits of that argument - then all that means is that there is no rational argument for being anything except straight. I don't believe that and I don't see what part it plays in todays rights argument.

The executive summary here is - not being white is fine regardless of whether this is a choice. Not being straight is fine regardless of whether its a choice - not being a male is fine regardless of whether its a choice - The other point here is that representing sexual fluidity and acknowledging its existence is also fine and more importantly, does not mean every single person is sexually fluid.

My point about the Europeans colonialism is that sexual matter is often used to dehumanize people. Hence, why people use terms like incel, groomer, or gay to deride their political opponents. Using sex and sexuality has always been the go to target to dehumanize someone.

 

[jaybee0560]

My point about the Europeans colonialism is that sexual matter is often used to dehumanize people. Hence, why people use terms like incel, groomer, or gay to deride their political opponents. Using sex and sexuality has always been the go to target to dehumanize someone.

Yes - I get that - I also get that its a wildly irrational argument that can be easily combatted without having to throw anyone under the bus.
To that point - skin colour - which we both seem to agree is immutable, has always been used to dehumanize people from slavery to status to just slagging people off - and this kinda flies in the face that the argument for gay rights rests on the assumption that sexuality is unchangeable right?
This is my entire point - use rational arguments to support rational ideas and everyone is happy - start playing politics by dancing around merit and you will quickly capsize.

 

[Beegun84]

Cheers for the definition of Post Gay - literally the first time I have heard that term.
Why don't we then aim for post "whatever the term is that allows people to have any sexual nature without a cost to their social standing" post gay seems a little unambitious.

I would argue that gay rights should not be argued on the basis that gay is like race. Almost no one argues that sexuality is exclusively based on biology, and how does this even matter?

Saying sexual fluidity exists doesn't even remotely imply that gay people are sexually fluid. It doesn't imply that all people are sexually fluid - it doesn't even imply that sexual fluidity is common.

Being sexually fluid is also not something you can catch any more than being Bi or gay is something you can catch - it would simply be your sexual make up as opposed to someone elses.

I am aware that conservative Christians make some pretty terrible arguments but I would also argue that you should point out the flaws in those arguements if its rights you are interested in rather than dance around them by throwing anyone under a bus.

If you get that - I have no idea how you feel queerness is about breaking social order as opposed to gay being all about preserving social order. That's simply an attempt to make a presentation of human sexuality about something other than human sexuality - if that's the road you wanna ho - then all you are doing is pandering to whatever definition the majority is willing to define as an acceptable social order - which is what I meant by saying that queer rights and gay right leverage each other. We should be arguing to get to the point where any sexual presentation between adults is a non-issue rather than pandering to fuckwit conservative christian ideals.

I have no idea why you are telling me about the history of Europe - or any culture for that matter. Arguments that were irrational should be dismissed on the basis of that - if we can't make the argument that being anything except straight isn't acceptable on the merits of that argument - then all that means is that there is no rational argument for being anything except straight. I don't believe that and I don't see what part it plays in todays rights argument.

The executive summary here is - not being white is fine regardless of whether this is a choice. Not being straight is fine regardless of whether its a choice - not being a male is fine regardless of whether its a choice - The other point here is that representing sexual fluidity and acknowledging its existence is also fine and more importantly, does not mean every single person is sexually fluid.

Actually how many people are sexually fluid that swings like a pendulum? What are the percentages because I haven't met one all my life.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are a lot more in numbers and this "queer movement" is trying to undone everything that LGBT rights have accomplished. After AIDS, promiscuity and other negativity (like for example useless gays trope, gossips/backstabbers) that the mainstream media has been feeding the world for decades now we finally are close to see the end of the tunnel but now everything starting to go backwards again because the "queer movement"/radical leftists directly handing ammunitions to the bigots to hurt us with the "g word that's not for gay", all the word salad to avoid the word woman, and this "I'm gay but I sleep with the opposite sex whenever I feel like it" sexual fluidity. And for what? What is this movement actually trying to accomplish? "Queers" always undermine gay or lesbian shows so they fail by saying too white, the characters not ugly enough (too fit), show's not diverse enough or not true to real life etc etc.

I'm going to end this with what RuPaul said repeatedly: "The wheel is working just fine, there's no need to change it".

 

[RugbyGuy42]

I'm a gay man who has sex with men and no one has tried to force sexual fluidity on me.

Weird corners of twitter is not real life.

 

[Beegun84]

I'm a gay man who has sex with men and no one has tried to force sexual fluidity on me.

Weird corners of twitter is not real life.

Not just weird corners of twitter but since 2018 every gay influencers and celebs with significant following on social media has posted kissing the opposite sex or something about sexual fluidity but they're met with some backlash ofc.

And also on RuPaul's Drag Race which is mainstream to the gays there're talks ofcrashing the cis-tem (hence the Rupaul quote of saying the wheel is fine) and on All Stars 5 and 6 they shame gold-star gays.

First thing I saw about this forcing of sexual fluidity was a documentary made in The Netherlands made in mid or late 2000s where a gold-star gay lost his gold star to a woman, he was taught on what to do to a female body.

And later, on an obscure movie called &Me which was funded by the EU where a gay man played by the hot priest from Dark suddenly fall in love with a woman.

 

[Jeffer2580]

Not just weird corners of twitter but since 2018 every gay influencers and celebs with significant following on social media has posted kissing the opposite sex or something about sexual fluidity but they're met with some backlash ofc.

And also on RuPaul's Drag Race which is mainstream to the gays there're talks ofcrashing the cis-tem (hence the Rupaul quote of saying the wheel is fine) and on All Stars 5 and 6 they shame gold-star gays.

First thing I saw about this forcing of sexual fluidity was a documentary made in The Netherlands made in mid or late 2000s where a gold-star gay lost his gold star to a woman, he was taught on what to do to a female body.

And later, on an obscure movie called &Me which was funded by the EU where a gay man played by the hot priest from Dark suddenly fall in love with a woman.

Since it's forbidden for gay men to be anything else but gay,add bob and rose to the mix,a series created by an openly gay man, Russell T Davis,the man who created queer as folk,the series was inspired by the true stories of Russell's friend and also inspired a fictional tv series on sex and the city called Mimi and (I've forgotten the name). The show follows Bob,a gay man who's a romantic at heart but because of the fast sex crazed party gay scene,he can't find the one who shares his romantic plight, he falls in love with a woman named Rose but he still referred to himself as gay as he was attracted to her as a person. He wasn't attracted to any other woman and his attraction to men was still dominant.

 

[Beegun84]

Since it's forbidden for gay men to be anything else but gay,add bob and rose to the mix,a series created by an openly gay man, Russell T Davis,the man who created queer as folk,the series was inspired by the true stories of Russell's friend and also inspired a fictional tv series on sex and the city called Mimi and (I've forgotten the name). The show follows Bob,a gay man who's a romantic at heart but because of the fast sex crazed party gay scene,he can't find the one who shares his romantic plight, he falls in love with a woman named Rose but he still referred to himself as gay as he was attracted to her as a person. He wasn't attracted to any other woman and his attraction to men was still dominant.

Yeah gay means gay. It is what it says on the tin.

Wikipedia page
The controversy column still holds up today. Of course since you're pan you disagree.

 

[dreambridger]

It's starting to sound like people feel like there's an exclusive attitude on both sides of this argument with each side feeling equally passionate. I'm almost curious to ask people in this thread's ages to see if there's generational differences.

Speaking for myself, I'm 33, so fairly young, and more acquainted with the current trends of LGBTQ attitudes. I'll admit that I've never even heard the term "gold star gay" until last year and it was on this forum, and I've never heard the term outside this forum. It has never been said to me in person and I've never heard it on television. So I'm wondering if this is an older attitude or older term that they used in the 90s or something? For me, of course I've had sex with women, I had to do it all to discover myself, and no one has ever given me grief for it. No one has doubted my homosexuality because of it. I assume most gay men have had sex with women at one point or another. I didn't realize anybody made a big deal about it.

I have, however, been given grief for not finding trans people attractive. I've been given grief for not being attracted to anyone who refers to themselves as "nonbinary". And I've been given the most grief when I've stood up for gender itself. There are many people in my generation and younger who claim they want to do away completely with the concept of gender not just for themselves but for society as a whole. I tell them that this would hurt me immensely as a gay man; it would nullify my existence if it were to come to be. Then I'm called a bigot and a transphobe for expressing this. This is what I think many in this thread are upset about. We're not upset that bisexual people exist. We're upset because we love a specific gender and there's a huge movement that wants to take that away from us and make us out to be the regressive ones.

So I'm certainly not trying discredit the experiences of bisexuals who've come up against an exclusive attitude when mingling with the gay community. I totally believe those experiences; people can be real jerks sometimes. But do try to see where we're coming from; try to understand why gender is so important to gay rights.

 

[Smallteaplant]

Since it's forbidden for gay men to be anything else but gay,add bob and rose to the mix,a series created by an openly gay man, Russell T Davis,the man who created queer as folk,the series was inspired by the true stories of Russell's friend and also inspired a fictional tv series on sex and the city called Mimi and (I've forgotten the name). The show follows Bob,a gay man who's a romantic at heart but because of the fast sex crazed party gay scene,he can't find the one who shares his romantic plight, he falls in love with a woman named Rose but he still referred to himself as gay as he was attracted to her as a person. He wasn't attracted to any other woman and his attraction to men was still dominant.

For someone from Nigeria, you're being obtuse about this whole subject. You should be more than aware of the cost and burden of sex than these silly white Westerns. Usually, people from Asian, African, and Eastern Europeans know that sex and relationships come at a cost. Where you have to date the right ethnicity, the right social status, and such. Anything less, you'll be met with disapproval or social ostracism. Do you not see the asymmetry in this conversation? Do straight men not kill homosexual, bisexual, and transexual men due to something called gay panic?

Has a gay man falling in love with a women led to him or the women being murder? No. So until straight people get over their hang ups, I as a gay men will police my own boundary for my own protection.

Signed,
A black American who is over this white Western queer nonsense. Live as a black person in the West who was taught things have a order and you miss with them as your own peril.

Breaking down on my premise of sex and sexuality

1. Sex and sexuality have a component of being social constructed.
2. Sex can never be meaningless because it's a mixture of psychological, biological, cultural, historical, and economical processes.
3. Due to the social nature of sexuality and sex, it is heavily regulated by the community, culture, and government. See the laws that forbid heterosexual couplings from different races, religions, caste, and social standings.
5. Stepping out of the proscribe social norm usually cost people their lives or social standing.
6.The only way to play the game that is sex and sexuality is to have power and social standing.
7. Sex is asymmetrical in nature due to biology. Females carry the most risk when it comes to sex. Most males do not get to mate or reproduce.
8. Most women and culture institutions prefer heterosexuality over forms of transsexualities and homosexuality.
8a. Cultures prefer heterosexuality because it leads to population growth. Women prefer heterosexual men because the risk of child rearing.
9. Homosexuality and cross-dressing usually cost men who pursue women. There are exceptions.
10. Those who are homosexual and cross-dressing face greater cost due to being perceived as a burden to those social institutions that sustain them.
11. The treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality is unequal due to their very nature

 

[Jeffer2580]

For someone from Nigeria, you're being obtuse about this whole subject. You should be more than aware of the cost and burden of sex than these silly white Westerns. Usually, people from Asian, African, and Eastern Europeans know that sex and relationships come at a cost. Where you have to date the right ethnicity, the right social status, and such. Anything less, you'll be met with disapproval or social ostracism. Do you not see the asymmetry in this conversation? Do straight men not kill homosexual, bisexual, and transexual men due to something called gay panic?

Has a gay man falling in love with a women led to him or the women being murder? No. So until straight people get over their hang ups, I as a gay men will police my own boundary for my own protection.

Signed,
A black American who is over this white Western queer nonsense. Live as a black person in the West who was taught things have a order and you miss with them as your own peril.

Breaking down on my premise of sex and sexuality

1. Sex and sexuality have a component of being social constructed.
2. Sex can never be meaningless because it's a mixture of psychological, biological, cultural, historical, and economical processes.
3. Due to the social nature of sexuality and sex, it is heavily regulated by the community, culture, and government. See the laws that forbid heterosexual couplings from different races, religions, caste, and social standings.
5. Stepping out of the proscribe social norm usually cost people their lives or social standing.
6.The only way to play the game that is sex and sexuality is to have power and social standing.
7. Sex is asymmetrical in nature due to biology. Females carry the most risk when it comes to sex. Most males do not get to mate or reproduce.
8. Most women and culture institutions prefer heterosexuality over forms of transsexualities and homosexuality.
8a. Cultures prefer heterosexuality because it leads to population growth. Women prefer heterosexual men because the risk of child rearing.
9. Homosexuality and cross-dressing usually cost men who pursue women. There are exceptions.
10. Those who are homosexual and cross-dressing face greater cost due to being perceived as a burden to those social institutions that sustain them.
11. The treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality is unequal due to their very nature

Ok, I've been following this thread since it's inception but as usual,been a silent observer to take it all in mostly due my personal bias owing to my conversion therapy and pansexuality. Sometimes when I pen something down on subjects like these,I ask myself "am I really the one speaking or is the conversion therapy taking it's grip?", sometimes I get so confused that I don't know which is which so I'm just gonna let the ones who feel like they are being erased take the mantle even if it's partially biased. I may agree with you that sexuality might be fixed for some people and fluid for some but at the end of the day fluidity does exist even in queer men who might think they are just downright fixed and their stories deserves to be heard

 

[Smallteaplant]

Ok, I've been following this thread since it's inception but as usual,been a silent observer to take it all in mostly due my personal bias owing to my conversion therapy and pansexuality. Sometimes when I pen something down on subjects like these,I ask myself "am I really the one speaking or is the conversion therapy taking it's grip?", sometimes I get so confused that I don't know which is which so I'm just gonna let the ones who feel like they are being erased take the mantle even if it's partially biased. I may agree with you that sexuality might be fixed for some people and fluid for some but at the end of the day fluidity does exist even in queer men who might think they are just downright fixed and their stories deserves to be heard

My point is that the treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality is asymmetric in nature. That is the point that you and all the people who are focusing on representation are missing. You still haven’t acknowledge any of my points.

 

[jaybee0560]

Actually how many people are sexually fluid that swings like a pendulum? What are the percentages because I haven't met one all my life.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are a lot more in numbers and this "queer movement" is trying to undone everything that LGBT rights have accomplished. After AIDS, promiscuity and other negativity (like for example useless gays trope, gossips/backstabbers) that the mainstream media has been feeding the world for decades now we finally are close to see the end of the tunnel but now everything starting to go backwards again because the "queer movement"/radical leftists directly handing ammunitions to the bigots to hurt us with the "g word that's not for gay", all the word salad to avoid the word woman, and this "I'm gay but I sleep with the opposite sex whenever I feel like it" sexual fluidity. And for what? What is this movement actually trying to accomplish? "Queers" always undermine gay or lesbian shows so they fail by saying too white, the characters not ugly enough (too fit), show's not diverse enough or not true to real life etc etc.

I'm going to end this with what RuPaul said repeatedly: "The wheel is working just fine, there's no need to change it".

Sexually fluid and swings like a pendulum aren't equivalent. The studies I've read indicate that it is far more likely for a fluid person to move from say exclusively gay to bi ..or straight to bi or bi to Gay or straight. Not Gay .. to straight.
And how many people you have met or what the actual percentages are isn't the actual point.
And the larger point is - simply making an assertion that some people are fluid doesn't undo any advances that have been made within the gay movement itself - unless you feel the message is that some people being fluid means everyone is fluid - which is bone headed and should be easily combatted with actual information. If the contention is that everyone is fluid then this also applied to straight society and I'd argue that just like most gay people recognise that their sexuality isn't fluid - most straight people also recognise the same.
Either way - the argument shouldn't be about any of this at all - the goal is to allow people to have relations with whoever you like even if that changes from time to time for certain people.

 

[Jeffer2580]

My point is that the treatment of homosexuality and heterosexuality is asymmetric in nature. That is the point that you and all the people who are focusing on representation are missing. You still haven’t acknowledge any of my points.

We can acknowledge their asymmetry while also acknowledging the voices of those in the middle, it's a two way street

 

[Smallteaplant]

We can acknowledge their asymmetry while also acknowledging the voices of those in the middle, it's a two way street

I'm just a guy on the internet. People mostly do as they please and come up with the excuses or justifications after the fact. The queers don't have anything to prove to me. Likewise, I don't owe them a damn thing.

 

[Beegun84]

We can acknowledge their asymmetry while also acknowledging the voices of those in the middle, it's a two way street

Unfortunately those in the middle inevitably have to choose, in most places you can only marry or have a long term relationship with one person at a time, of course you can marry and divorce several times (except in the Philippines where divorce is illegal). You can't claim that you're gay and fall in love with the opposite sex (the old adage you haven't found the right man/woman yet), and vice versa you can't claim you're straight and fall in love with the same sex. But as smallteaplant said the risk is a lot higher for people who enters a same-sex relationship.

Bob & Rose was made right after Queer As Folk, so I guess Russell T Davies was compensating for QAF and proves that he's a "team player" and that has gotten him a long and fruitful career. But even his works tend to kill of gay couples. But at least Torchwood was entertaining, unlike 99% of gay movies and shows which fail at being an entertainment. Although he hasn't had success since then since his shows stop being entertaining.

 

[Jon1971]

They're pushing fluidity onto everyone, not just gay men.

 

[Beegun84]

They're pushing fluidity onto everyone, not just gay men.

But not nearly as hard of a push as to gay men and lesbians. TPTB has a lot more to lose.

 

[Tonny]

That's why a HATE SO MUCH the Queer Agenda.

 

[Nomebear]

fluidity flies against the struggle to claim identity for many older gays. We fought against arguments that we can change our sexuality, fluidity implies we can.

I know this to be an old, tired discussion, but I can't help but be resentful. What we have today in the U.S. in gay freedom and rights (I'm speaking for those of us who have always lived as gay men.) was hard earned and not without suffering on the part of those who lived through some very tough times.

A few of us had the support of our family and straight friends as we buried our partners from AIDS, healed in a hospitals after being beaten within an inch of existence by xenophobes, or lost the security of jobs because of our sexual preference. But many of us were cast out, shunned, and disowned.

Today, I have many acquaintances were married most of their lives. They've come out after the wife died, the kids were grown and gone, they're bored with their sham marriages, or it's now convenient to do so.