Quantcast GSRM Community - Page 208 - The Writer's Block
Refresh the page...
forums KidPub Home
  #2071  
Old 01-24-2017, 01:54 PM
meerkat meerkat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: the void
Posts: 6,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebecca View Post
INDEEEED I HAVE FRENDO
IM FACING THE NORTH rn
Lmao I think I'm facing west now but in my defense I can't exactly move a wall
Reply With Quote
  #2072  
Old 01-24-2017, 01:55 PM
rebecca rebecca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: honestly I can't even think of a witty answer anymore this is tragic
Posts: 6,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meerkat View Post
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
__________________
The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Reply With Quote
  #2073  
Old 01-24-2017, 01:57 PM
SilverMoon SilverMoon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: palmetto state
Posts: 10,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebecca View Post
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
__________________
this and this and this
Reply With Quote
  #2074  
Old 01-24-2017, 01:59 PM
rebecca rebecca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: honestly I can't even think of a witty answer anymore this is tragic
Posts: 6,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon View Post
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
__________________
The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Reply With Quote
  #2075  
Old 01-24-2017, 06:44 PM
AlgebraAddict AlgebraAddict is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: tehksus
Posts: 16,905
Default

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?
__________________



and I'll use you as a
w a r n i n g
s i g n
that if you talk enough sense, then you'll lose your mind



- I Found, by Amber Run
Reply With Quote
  #2076  
Old 01-24-2017, 07:34 PM
pluzzle pluzzle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
nya
Reply With Quote
  #2077  
Old 01-24-2017, 08:46 PM
meerkat meerkat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: the void
Posts: 6,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlgebraAddict View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #2078  
Old 01-24-2017, 09:11 PM
Zelda Zelda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: spaceship
Posts: 964
Default

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.
__________________
Little boy inside my chest
Breathe some life into my bones
I've been lost and wandering
Down and out and missing home


(So beat a little louder now
I can't hear you anymore)
-Barns Courntey
Reply With Quote
  #2079  
Old 01-24-2017, 09:14 PM
Jesse Jesse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: a place tantalizingly close to home
Posts: 5,700
Send a message via Skype™ to Jesse
Default 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
__________________
If you choose to be invisible, its a superpower; if its forced upon you, its a plight. The same goes for being visible. - Kathryn Schulz, Sight Unseen

Last edited by Jesse; 01-24-2017 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2080  
Old 01-24-2017, 09:26 PM
meerkat meerkat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: the void
Posts: 6,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
♤of♡s, alaska is a mermaid, am confuse but yolo, asher was here, cutie jasper <3, down with het, elliot is the best ever, elliot will u marry me, fuck trump, genderqueer, girls are yes, gsrm, homo-freaking-flexible, i <3 girls, i am ellio, i have a crush on u, i love elliot more stfu, once in slept w/ santa d:, shit am i gay, shut the fuck up, thanks 4 helping me out, trans & pan pride, u are not ellio im ellio, u go, yo i love everyone

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


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

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.