|
Although if you bring up your own personal fetishes unprompted then you forfeit your right to complain when people mock you for it.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Although if you bring up your own personal fetishes unprompted then you forfeit your right to complain when people mock you for it. Before we further this discussion, I believe that we are all going to have to disclose our fursonas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:It's kind of like the word transgender. "Queer" represents both an umbrella term (like LGBT) and a specific identity. Josh Lyman posted:Is this a real post? My post was in reply to someone claiming that heterosexual people can be queer. So if that's the case, what does queer even mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:If kink isn't the same thing as queer then in what way can a heterosexual couple bring about a "radical critique and deconstruction of heteronormativity" as you claim? Well, and this is an exaggerated, though more than possible example. A transgender lady and a trans man get together. They're a het couple, but I doubt you'd object to them being called queer, right? And queer can also apply to non-standard and non-binary gender presentation, which isn't the same as sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Although if you bring up your own personal fetishes unprompted then you forfeit your right to complain when people mock you for it. this is the crucial thing, i have literally never seen an instance of kinkshaming that wasn't 100% warranted the mythical "guy comes into group of people on forums.bondagetalk.com in their own private discussion thread and calls them all creepy faggots" is just that, a myth, every instance of kinkshaming i have seen is someone in a completely unrelated public forum bringing up how they like to whack it to underage anime girls and getting all mad when everyone else completely justifiably goes "you're a creepy loving weirdo" your kinks should be just like your genitalia: show that poo poo to people who want to see them and nobody else it's crucial too because when you don't publicly shame and humiliate people for being creepy weirdos, you get situations like tvtropes or reddit where their laissez-faire attitude allows the absolute worst of humanity to dominate discussion because there's no fear of punishment like the sa forums used to be really, REALLY aggressively anti-furry for a reason, because there was a significant time period where the furry community was dominated by weirdos who would bring up how they wanted to bang babs from space jam completely unwarranted, everywhere NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:this is the crucial thing, i have literally never seen an instance of kinkshaming that wasn't 100% warranted Interestingly there's that one mod (maybe?) on the forums here that posts every once in a while and there's some weird guy who has a grudge against him and follows him around randomly bringing up some BDSM relationship he has with his black girlfriend. It's happened often enough that I don't remember the mod's name but I do know that when I see a post about something like the minimum wage and see a response going "but maybe you're the real racist because you beat your black girlfriend", I think "Oh, it's that guy again". It's really weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
that's zeitgueist, who was never a mod and just perma'd in fact and iirc it was more a highlight of how much of a hypocrite he was (considering he's sort of a parody of the Angry Tumblr Feminist and iirc it was chokey punchy sex over "just" bdsm) than of any function of kinkshaming zeitgueist is more of an exception than a rule because he went around intentionally pissing everyone off, reap what you sow there hombre NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Well, and this is an exaggerated, though more than possible example. A transgender lady and a trans man get together. They're a het couple, but I doubt you'd object to them being called queer, right? I think from the context of the post I was replying to, he was suggesting that basically cisgendered heterosexual people can somehow qualify as queer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I think from the context of the post I was replying to, he was suggesting that basically cisgendered heterosexual people can somehow qualify as queer. A cis person can be queer if they identify as queer, but queerness does not exclude opposite sex relationships. A heterosexual queer is an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
swickles posted:Am I the only one who thought the Q was for "questioning"? No, that's what I always thought it stood for as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
raditts posted:No, that's what I always thought it stood for as well. Yeah, I have always seen it as that, although that may be something regional, or even profession related (I work in the medical field). Either way, here is a wiki article to prove I (we) are not crazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioning_%28sexuality_and_gender%29
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
raditts posted:No, that's what I always thought it stood for as well. Well fuckit, if there's already one Q on a 6+ letter abbreviation then you might as well slap a second one in there too
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
I still don't understand why the dildo-ISIS CNN reporter didn't just go "whoopsie, I hosed up" and continue tweeting about Taylor Swift or whatever. She's still radio silent and it just makes her look sillier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Before we further this discussion, I believe that we are all going to have to disclose our fursonas. Garfield the Hedgehog.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
raditts posted:No, that's what I always thought it stood for as well. I want to say I've seen it be that before but definitely also queer; the whole alphabet soup thing going on with that movement is honestly kind of counterproductive when you have to take a minute and think about what it even stands for. A big tent is absolutely needed, but the branding is a bit hosed. Someone needs to roofie Frank Luntz and get something better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
The whole acronym thing comes from an earlier time when we thought everyone fit in a distinct category. Straight, gay, bi, and so on. The more we learn about sexuality, the more we learn about how it often defies easy categorization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:27
|
|
Tater Love 
|
zakharov posted:The whole acronym thing comes from an earlier time when we thought everyone fit in a distinct category. Straight, gay, bi, and so on. The more we learn about sexuality, the more we learn about how it often defies easy categorization. And this is why I like queer. Some authors tried to make pomosexual (for postmodern) a thing but it never really caught on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:And this is why I like queer. Some authors tried to make pomosexual (for postmodern) a thing but it never really caught on. "pomosexual" looks too much like it says "pornosexual" with bad kerning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I want to say I've seen it be that before but definitely also queer; the whole alphabet soup thing going on with that movement is honestly kind of counterproductive when you have to take a minute and think about what it even stands for. A big tent is absolutely needed, but the branding is a bit hosed. Isn't Luntz the kind of piece of poo poo that will work for whoever pays him enough?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
how about snowflakesexual
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:how about snowflakesexual  What a joke!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
zakharov posted:The whole acronym thing comes from an earlier time when we thought everyone fit in a distinct category. Straight, gay, bi, and so on. The more we learn about sexuality, the more we learn about how it often defies easy categorization. As much as I dislike quoting Adam Curry, unless a unifying word is agreed on soon it's going to end up going full out LGBBTQQIAAP (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Bigender, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual) again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
zakharov posted:The whole acronym thing comes from an earlier time when we thought everyone fit in a distinct category. Straight, gay, bi, and so on. The more we learn about sexuality, the more we learn about how it often defies easy categorization. The question I think most normal people are asking is why does every little variation of sexual preference need a distinct identity or, really, any identity at all? It made sense in the past to single out homosexuals because they were facing legal discrimination. They needed to group up to affect change. It makes sense to cordon off transexuals in the same manner because they're also seeking similar legal and social acceptance. But when it comes to queers, demisexuals and other categories that don't actually want anything, what's the point of lumping them into distinct identity groups?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:"pomosexual" looks too much like it says "pornosexual" with bad kerning. It should just be "pornosexual".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:The question I think most normal people are asking is why does every little variation of sexual preference need a distinct identity or, really, any identity at all? It made sense in the past to single out homosexuals because they were facing legal discrimination. They needed to group up to affect change. It makes sense to cordon off transexuals in the same manner because they're also seeking similar legal and social acceptance. But when it comes to queers, demisexuals and other categories that don't actually want anything, what's the point of lumping them into distinct identity groups? Because it helps people to know that there are other people like them and they can get support / advice about issues they're having regarding their identity. It can also help to provide information for those who don't understand these people. See the forums of asexuality.org for a good example of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
please do not reply in earnest to irish joe
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:A cis person can be queer if they identify as queer, but queerness does not exclude opposite sex relationships. A heterosexual queer is an oxymoron. I mean, it definitely isn't an oxymoron since, as has already been discussed, a transgender person could be a queer heterosexual. But just to clarify: you are saying that a cisgendered person who has only had opposite sex relationships can qualify as queer? It seems like you're saying that the only thing you need to label yourself queer is to decide that you want to be called queer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
The comments are so overwhelmingly 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I mean, it definitely isn't an oxymoron since, as has already been discussed, a transgender person could be a queer heterosexual. But just to clarify: you are saying that a cisgendered person who has only had opposite sex relationships can qualify as queer? It seems like you're saying that the only thing you need to label yourself queer is to decide that you want to be called queer. "Heterosexual" is also a sexual identity, and trans people can be straight, so I find that notion debatable and I'm sure there are a lot of trans people who would disagree with being told they're not straight. Remember that I'm distinguishing between queer (identity) and queer (umbrella term), too. And anyone can call themselves queer, I mean, anyone can call themselves anything. I'm saying that someone who is "actually" queer might end up in only opposite gender relationships just because that's how it happened. Does a bi person stop being bi if they're not actively having sex with both genders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Afro posted:please do not reply in earnest to irish joe But you'd be right to say that there's a slippery slope from something like that to having a dumb slapfight with irish joe. Never labor under the illusion that you're engaging irish joe when you respond to him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Eh. Short to the point posts that make a basic point that's generally valuable are fine. That last line makes it sound like you're telling Irish Joe stories to frighten children around a campfire or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That last line makes it sound like you're telling Irish Joe stories to frighten children around a campfire or something. Sometimes, I am just here reading the forums, and I read an Irish Joe post, and I agree with him. One day, it will happen to you too. Maybe even today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Sometimes, I am just here reading the forums, and I read an Irish Joe post, and I agree with him. One time I found myself in a thread disagreeing with something Irish Joe said and other posters seemed to be on his side. I didn't know what the hell to make of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:"Heterosexual" is also a sexual identity, and trans people can be straight, so I find that notion debatable and I'm sure there are a lot of trans people who would disagree with being told they're not straight. Remember that I'm distinguishing between queer (identity) and queer (umbrella term), too. I don't understand this post at all. I said that a trans person can be straight, and you say you "find that notion debatable", but then just talk about how trans people can be straight. You're the one who said that queer heterosexual was an oxymoron. And as for the second part, I've asked you like three times now and I still don't know if you think that a cisgendered person who has only had relationships with the opposite gender can be considered queer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I don't understand this post at all. I said that a trans person can be straight, and you say you "find that notion debatable", but then just talk about how trans people can be straight. You're the one who said that queer heterosexual was an oxymoron. Yes, I do think that. Sexual identity and sexual practice are different things. A bisexual person doesn't stop being bisexual just because they haven't had sex with a member of the same gender. I'm still talking about queerness as an identity here, the only way you can have a "queer heterosexual" (where heterosexual, or straight, is an identity) is if you're thinking about transness under the queer umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Web exclusive content because the show is off this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk2oW4SDDxY
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Pugception is the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
John Oliver is human garbage for coming out against subtitles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
John Oliver is absolutely loving amazing and living proof that good writers ain't poo poo without amazing delivery. I guess that also somehow works for Larry Wilmore in a way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:I guess that also somehow works for Larry Wilmore in a way. ~That State is Cray-ayyy!~
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 16:04
|
|
