The Writer's Block

The Writer's Block (http://www.kidpub.com/forum3/index.php)
-   Free advice (http://www.kidpub.com/forum3/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   GSRM Community (http://www.kidpub.com/forum3/showthread.php?t=3738)

rebecca 01-24-2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meerkat (Post 593979)
Lmao I think I'm facing west now but in my defense I can't exactly move a wall

honestly idk what direction im facing but im certainly facing the north in my heart

SilverMoon 01-24-2017 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebecca (Post 593980)
honestly idk what direction im facing but im certainly facing the north in my heart

I'm facing north in the literal sense bc this chair faces north

rebecca 01-24-2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverMoon (Post 593981)
I'm facing north in the literal sense bc this chair faces north

CONGRATULATIONS FRD
YOU ORIENTED TOWARD THE NORTH
NORTH ORIENTATION BEST ORIENTATION
fact

AlgebraAddict 01-24-2017 07:44 PM

open ended question

If someone is homoromantic and asexual and they are walking down the street holding hands with their significant other of the same sex (assuming they are okay with that), and they identify as a COUPLE and they go on DATES but they just don't have sex, are they still a gay couple?

What if they're both 100% homosEXUAL but have decided not to sleep with each other for some reason?

pluzzle 01-24-2017 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 593927)
They're valid (ofc), but they wouldn't be LGBT in that they are asexuals, not gay.

gay = sexual attraction to same sex
Romantic attraction doesn't even come into the question.

If a homoromantic asexual chooses to call themselves gay, they can. They experience Same gender attraction
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 593943)
as the gay person in this debate I think I know what I'm saying
I'm not "sexualizing gay people", sexuality is literally what determines your sexuality

Many gay people in this debate.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swallowtail (Post 593952)
hey wonderful I get shit for not being gay and for trying to be part of the community that's wonderful. I guess I just can't belong anywhere then?? lol great let me just vanish into thin air like I should since I don't exist. Also not to be rude but no ones going to assume I'm straight and no one should know I'm ace is i haven't told them so??? And how does it hurt other LGBT people if I want to call myself gay? So I can't belong to a community that's supposed to be welcoming now? Ok lmao.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I promise a lot of people don't believe that. If you experience multiple gender attraction/same gender, you are LGBT.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverMoon (Post 593962)
also I'm sorry like???? You're not ace what do you know about what acespecs think and feel.

Lol
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlgebraAddict (Post 593987)
open ended question

If someone is homoromantic and asexual and they are walking down the street holding hands with their significant other of the same sex (assuming they are okay with that), and they identify as a COUPLE and they go on DATES but they just don't have sex, are they still a gay couple?

What if they're both 100% homosEXUAL but have decided not to sleep with each other for some reason?

I would say yes, if they're a same sex couple they are considered gay esp. in the eyes of society but it may be different with their identities

meerkat 01-24-2017 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlgebraAddict (Post 593987)
open ended question

If someone is homoromantic and asexual and they are walking down the street holding hands with their significant other of the same sex (assuming they are okay with that), and they identify as a COUPLE and they go on DATES but they just don't have sex, are they still a gay couple?

What if they're both 100% homosEXUAL but have decided not to sleep with each other for some reason?

i'd still consider them gay tbh
there's more to gay identity than having sex!! even though i experience at least some degree of attraction, i don't think i'll ever want to do the thing with anyone ever (just. too much. body parts are gross) and that doesn't make me a fake lesbian or anything

Zelda 01-24-2017 10:11 PM

Why not just ask the person what they want to be identified as?
I mean, instead of sitting here debating whether homo ace's are gay, go and ask them what they want to identify as?

Because it's legit not up to you what their sexual/romantic identity is, and you don't actually get to say whether somebody other than you belongs in a community based on your personal opinions?

And honestly, how much would it really effect LGBT+ community if ace/aro spec people join?? Like, whoop-de-fricking-do, some members face less/different discrimination than others. If they're willing to help you then why does it matter? Including ace/aro spec does not invalidate you in any way. It doesn't slow your progress. It doesn't hurt you. In fact, it might even help you in some aspects. "Many hands make light work", as the saying goes.

Now, I'm not going to try to tell you that you should, or should not, include ace/aro spec people in the LGBT+ community, that's not my place. (hint hint)

but King's above and below, stop acting like-- what was the term? Lena used it on the a/n a while back...Oh, yeah, stop acting like bloody soggy lampshades over this.

This discourse started out fairly civil, but it has devolved and it is clear that no one can come to a total agreement. People have already been offended and/or/maybe hurt, and that should be a cue to all of you to step away from the computer, take a breath, and accept that you all have your differences. That is, after all, what KP is about, isn't it? Accepting differences.

Jesse 01-24-2017 10:14 PM

i shouldn't have continued this
 
First of all, it's not like I'm debating over this because I want to be nitpicky or a grammar freak. I think it's important.��

Right: Homosexuality/gayness has always had the denotation of being a sexual orientation. I know Rebecca says that it has broadened its definition and maybe it has, but the reason gay people are oppressed is because people think they are sexually broken.

Romantic interests do not enter the equation.

Why do I think this? Let's say you're a gay guy, 1950s. You have a wife. You've always dated women. Dating a man would be scoffable, and anyways, you wouldn't want to. Now, let's say someone finds out about your sexual orientation and you are sent to an insane asylum. In this circumstance, it was not your romantic interests that ratted you out; it was your sexuality.

Another scenario: You're a homoromantic asexual, 1950s. You date members of the same sex and you're sent to an insane asylum because of this. Yes, you were targeted for your romantic interests, but you were discriminated under the assumption that you were a homosexual.

In the first scenario, you were targeted because you were a homosexual, whereas in the second scenario, you were targeted because they had reason to believe you were a homosexual. You are not discriminated for your romantic interests; you are discriminated because those romantic interests imply that there's something wrong with your sexuality.

This debunks the idea that "homosexuality and homoromantiscism are the same thing because after all, they're both targeted for the same reasons!" They're not targeted for the same reasons; homosexuals get targeted for being homosexuals. Homoromantics are targeted because people think they are homosexuals.

Next, romantic attractions are often times fluid. It's possible they can be molded by personal experiences--maybe you grew up liking girls, but after a traumatic event, you became aromantic. Maybe you're bisexual, always dated guys, but as you grew older your preferences changed and you found yourself more attracted to girls.

That's completely different from sexuality. Sexuality is rock-solid, unalterable. No event will ever change it; it is a part of you until the day you die.

In that respect, homosexuality and homoromantism are very different and by saying both of them are technically gay is to equate two different experiences.

So if you say homoromantic = gay, you're essentially saying "homoromantics face the same exact things homosexuals face and they're equally discriminated for the same exact reasons". This is harmful, because how are we supposed to solve two completely different problems when we can't even DIFFERENTIATE between the two?

And I know Meera and co think this is "sexualizing homosexuality" but that's kinda the point. Gays get discriminated because of their sexuality, not their romantic attraction. And you can't possibly solve homophobia if you don't recognize that.

debate away

meerkat 01-24-2017 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 593995)
First of all, it's not like I'm debating over this because I want to be nitpicky or a grammar freak. I think it's important.��

Right: Homosexuality/gayness has always had the denotation of being a sexual orientation. I know Rebecca says that it has broadened its definition and maybe it has, but the reason gay people are oppressed is because people think they are sexually broken.

Romantic interests do not enter the equation.

Why do I think this? Let's say you're a gay guy, 1950s. You have a wife. You've always dated women. Dating a man would be scoffable, and anyways, you wouldn't want to. Now, let's say someone finds out about your sexual orientation and you are sent to an insane asylum. In this circumstance, it was not your romantic interests that ratted you out; it was your sexuality.

Another scenario: You're a homoromantic asexual, 1950s. You date members of the same sex and you're sent to an insane asylum because of this. Yes, you were targeted for your romantic interests, but you were discriminated under the assumption that you were a homosexual.

In the first scenario, you were targeted because you were a homosexual, whereas in the second scenario, you were targeted because they had reason to believe you were a homosexual. You are not discriminated for your romantic interests; you are discriminated because those romantic interests imply that there's something wrong with your sexuality.

This debunks the idea that "homosexuality and homoromantiscism are the same thing because after all, they're both targeted for the same reasons!" They're not targeted for the same reasons; homosexuals get targeted for being homosexuals. Homoromantics are targeted because people think they are homosexuals.

Next, romantic attractions are often times fluid. It's possible they can be molded by personal experiences--maybe you grew up liking girls, but after a traumatic event, you became aromantic. Maybe you're bisexual, always dated guys, but as you grew older your preferences changed and you found yourself more attracted to girls.

That's completely different from sexuality. Sexuality is rock-solid, unalterable. No event will ever change it; it is a part of you until the day you die.

In that respect, homosexuality and homoromantism are very different and by saying both of them are technically gay is to equate two different experiences.

So if you say homoromantic = gay, you're essentially saying "homoromantics face the same exact things homosexuals face and they're equally discriminated for the same exact reasons". This is harmful, because how are we supposed to solve two completely different problems when we can't even DIFFERENTIATE between the two?

And I know Meera and co think this is "sexualizing homosexuality" but that's kinda the point. Gays get discriminated because of their sexuality, not their romantic attraction. And you can't possibly solve homophobia if you don't recognize that.

debate away

sexual attraction can be fluid too - i used to identify as bisexual, then asexual, and now gay, and all those identities fit perfectly at the respective times

also... coming from my south asian point of view, my culture doesn't really.... differentiate between romantic and sexual attraction. they're both bad

Swallowtail 01-24-2017 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 593995)
First of all, it's not like I'm debating over this because I want to be nitpicky or a grammar freak. I think it's important.��

Right: Homosexuality/gayness has always had the denotation of being a sexual orientation. I know Rebecca says that it has broadened its definition and maybe it has, but the reason gay people are oppressed is because people think they are sexually broken.

Romantic interests do not enter the equation.

Why do I think this? Let's say you're a gay guy, 1950s. You have a wife. You've always dated women. Dating a man would be scoffable, and anyways, you wouldn't want to. Now, let's say someone finds out about your sexual orientation and you are sent to an insane asylum. In this circumstance, it was not your romantic interests that ratted you out; it was your sexuality.

Another scenario: You're a homoromantic asexual, 1950s. You date members of the same sex and you're sent to an insane asylum because of this. Yes, you were targeted for your romantic interests, but you were discriminated under the assumption that you were a homosexual.

In the first scenario, you were targeted because you were a homosexual, whereas in the second scenario, you were targeted because they had reason to believe you were a homosexual. You are not discriminated for your romantic interests; you are discriminated because those romantic interests imply that there's something wrong with your sexuality.

This debunks the idea that "homosexuality and homoromantiscism are the same thing because after all, they're both targeted for the same reasons!" They're not targeted for the same reasons; homosexuals get targeted for being homosexuals. Homoromantics are targeted because people think they are homosexuals.

Next, romantic attractions are often times fluid. It's possible they can be molded by personal experiences--maybe you grew up liking girls, but after a traumatic event, you became aromantic. Maybe you're bisexual, always dated guys, but as you grew older your preferences changed and you found yourself more attracted to girls.

That's completely different from sexuality. Sexuality is rock-solid, unalterable. No event will ever change it; it is a part of you until the day you die.

In that respect, homosexuality and homoromantism are very different and by saying both of them are technically gay is to equate two different experiences.

So if you say homoromantic = gay, you're essentially saying "homoromantics face the same exact things homosexuals face and they're equally discriminated for the same exact reasons". This is harmful, because how are we supposed to solve two completely different problems when we can't even DIFFERENTIATE between the two?

And I know Meera and co think this is "sexualizing homosexuality" but that's kinda the point. Gays get discriminated because of their sexuality, not their romantic attraction. And you can't possibly solve homophobia if you don't recognize that.

debate away

hey sorry but sexuality isn't rock solid either??? tbh I'm not in a great mental state currently so I apologize if anything I've said is rude but?? people can get shit for kissing someone of the same gender regardless of whether or not the person giving them shit thinks they've been having sex with that person or not?? and the same as romantic attraction sexual attraction can change and for a lot of people it does??? And yeah being homoromantic and ace is different from being homoromantic/sexual but I mean I still get shit for it and I also get shit from both sides of it? I'm not straight enough to be straight and I'm not gay enough to be gay and I'm tired of having to exist in this weird sort of limbo where people debate my existence and whether or not my experiences are valid or not.

I also really don't know how to feel about your comment on you being the gay person here because??? can I now not identify as that because it's hurtful or??? do I just give up at this point and accept that I'm never gojng to belong anywhere???


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.