Are these people serious?

submitted by pacmanla from self.LGBDropTheT

These back & forth exchanges were from a recent Reddit post.

Commenter 1 - "What does it mean, that you're straight? From a science point of view there is no straight and gay tho. Sexual preferences are a spectrum, not just an on/off-value"

Another poster posted about "social conditioning" to have "genital preferences" & that being attracted to someone because of their genitals, then you're just "fetishizing" genitals & aren't attracted to the person.

2020 is literally the twilight zone.

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]chandra 72 insightful - 1 fun72 insightful - 0 fun73 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the only people who could believe this are

  • 'enlightened' teenagers who want to question everything about society and don't have the sex/relationships experience to know better (possibly haven't even finished puberty)

  • trans people who are personally invested in this being true

  • maybe also some bisexuals who can't relate to monosexuality

I had similar 'enlightened' views about polyamory before I had any relationship experience. 'No one person can satisfy all your needs,' said teenage me, 'so it makes much more sense to be poly.' Turns out in the real world most people don't have time for more than one relationship (let alone one with kids), most people only get deeply attached to one person at a time anyway, and you can't easily debate yourself out of feelings like jealousy just because they're not logical.

A sliver of real world experience will destroy an entire blog's worth of theory when it comes to sexuality.

[–]8bitgay 28 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 0 fun29 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

'enlightened' teenagers who want to question everything about society and don't have the sex/relationships experience to know better (possibly haven't even finished puberty)

This explains a lot about social media and it's really bizarre to see actual adults aged 30+ who should know better retweeting these teens.

Social media would be less awful if they restricted it to adults only. Or at the very least make 18- accounts invisible to people who are 18+ and vice-versa.

[–]chandra 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My thoughts exactly. I think if you could filter out under-18s and trans people you'd rarely see any of this radical trans nonsense.

And the frustrating thing is that I think most of these woke trans-ally teens are genuinely well-meaning. Love hearts not parts, be as accepting as possible, don't make anyone feel excluded. They legitimately don't understand that sexuality doesn't work that way. But they cross a line when they start trying to police other people's behaviour and desires.

[–]8bitgay 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the dichotomy is really bizarre. On one hand you see woke people making a big deal of men who date women aged 18~20 (young but perfectly legal adults). But at the same time they're ok with bringing actual teens to graphic discussions about sexuality.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A fast theory for why teenager are for such a radical acceptance and tolerance: due to adults giving them (valid) restrictions and expectations. They hate these so they want places with no restrictions (that's why the trans and sexuality stuff are usually umbrella terms and big spectrums) and no expectations (that's why tucutes are so popular).

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

so basically adolescence1101

[–]insta 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My thoughts exactly. I think if you could filter out under-18s and trans people you'd rarely see any of this radical trans nonsense.

Only for now. It's just a myth that people suddenly just grow up and drop their ideology from college. Sure, some people may change some ideas but this concept that young adults believe in crazy stuff then turn 18,21, or 25 and suddenly think differently just isn't true.

[–]chandra 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think they might mellow out on this issue though. I guess it depends what's actually happening with these teens pushing the whole 'genital preferences are bigoted' nonsense. If, as I suspect, their openness to trans people and their lack of genital preference is just something they're faking for the sake of being progressive, then they can probably only keep it up for so long.

Obviously the trans people themselves are never gonna drop it though, their sex lives depend on as many people believing this crap as possible.

[–]rockhard288 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only people who retweet/repost that are the porn models and the wannabe porn "model" sex addicts.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll add that part of being an adult and in a mature relationship is dealing with the "no one person can satisfy all your needs" issue in a realistic and healthy way (and I don't mean sex with other people).

[–]davids877Straight Male Man 34 insightful - 1 fun34 insightful - 0 fun35 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, Kinsey did propose a scale or 'spectrum' of sexuality. However at one end was straight and the other was gay and everything in the middle was bi.

[–]sleepless-dreamer 31 insightful - 5 fun31 insightful - 4 fun32 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

It's homophobia with a brand new woke coat of paint.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 24 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 6 fun25 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, please go around telling straight men and women that they’re not really straight. It’s been taking them long enough to move to the next phase. Why save all of the fun for homosexual and bisexual people when there are far more heterosexual people out there who you can shame for their sexual orientation and redefine it to be more “inclusive.”

[–]FrostyNugsI'm allergic to nuts 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but then they blame us for trying to "convert them to gay." The damage caused by queer theory lunatics hiding behind normal LGBs.

[–]Shadow_Lurker 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let's see...

From a science point of view

Let me guess, this person haven't cited even one study to corroborate this and is just vomiting some shit they saw on twitter.

Sexual preferences are a spectrum, not just an on/off-value

They keep using the word 'spectrum', but seem to not understand what it really means. A spectrum needs it's extremes to exist, or in other words: if there's no such a thing as gay and straight, then there's no sexuality spectrum!

Who would've thought!

Another poster posted about "social conditioning" to have "genital preferences"

For a person that was seconds ago citing science they sure don't know even basic biology. Most people care about genitals because they are essential to reproduction, not just to spite some brave and stunning transgender.

Do these people really think that genitals are just cosmetic things with no function? How many layers of delusion does someone needs to be in other to believe shit like this?

that being attracted to someone because of their genitals, then you're just "fetishizing" genitals & aren't attracted to the person.

1 - 'Genital Fetish' is an oximoron.

2 - By this standard, every sexual orientation is just a continuous fetishizing of certain people's bodies.

3 - The use of the word 'fetish' as a pejorative is very rich coming form the TQ's: aren't they the people who always wanted to cram fetishists with the rest of the LGBT? Speaking of that, isn't trans twitter a clusterfuck of sick fetishes including fetishization of homosexuality?

Who are the fetishists now?

[–]ChodeSandwichtender and moist 21 insightful - 4 fun21 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

They're virgins and/or bluffing.

[–]FrostyNugsI'm allergic to nuts 20 insightful - 6 fun20 insightful - 5 fun21 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Are these people serious?

Unfortunately whenever a person has to ask this about something the queer theory people are saying, the answer is always yes.

[–]cutenoobies 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Whatever happened to "born this way"? I used to have arguments with homophobes on facebook from 2009 to 2015 that no amount of straight relationships (real life or virtual) could help me turn the other way. For some time after that it was fine and people understood, and now these people are saying that our "genital preferences" are nothing but "social conditioning"? These idiots are undoing all those decades of progress.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly! I loved the "born this way" time. And like, in the blink of an eye, we have people apparently from our community doing shit and putting us backwards all over again :|

[–]denverkrisMy pronouns are Vodka?/Yes!/please 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They seem to forget that homosexuals, much like heterosexuals, are attracted to PRIMARY AS WELL AS secondary sex characteristics. PRIMARY sex characteristics are...you guessed it, GENITALS!

And for those in the back, a FETISH involves a NON GENITAL body part:

"Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part. "

So, liking a particular type of genitals is not a "fetish", ffs. Stop bastardizing words.

[–]ChodeSandwichtender and moist 17 insightful - 9 fun17 insightful - 8 fun18 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

They act like they don't know what secondary sexual characteristics are then go back to trans spaces to fret about whether their little finger passes and lament that their skeletons might be misgendered if dug up in four hundred years (seriously).

[–]kwallio 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was going to comment and make this exact point. A "genital fetish" is also called normal fucking sexuality, thanks.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

what sub?

<<Another poster posted about "social conditioning" to have "genital preferences">>

I must correct this one at least once a week at reddit. Woke straights using it too.

[–]Tarohan 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Man, when are the holding the Olympics for all the mental gymnastics they been doing? They gotta be buff by now. That is so ridiculous.

[–]insta 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

There's no difference between a puddle, pond, or lake because there's no specific volume of water that Science!TM agrees on that distinguishes them.

If you disagree you're anti-science and a conspiracy theorist.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

Tell them they're an ableist, delfiniphobic, bigot for not wanting to fuck a dolphin because "Sexual Preference are a spectrum" and they're being ableist lil c#nts for not wanting to fuck something without legs. Poor disabled dolphins!

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But in all serious...where are people getting these ideas that sexuality and "gender"(aka, sex) is a spectrum? Who came up with that? It's binary. You either like only women, only men, or both. That's it. Nothing else to it.

For real...I'm curious if it's an early 2000s or 2010s thing? When did it originate and how did gender get replaced by sex? ....I'm curious in what sex ed looks like now or will look like in the future. Will they start calling girls/womens as "persons who menustrate"? Or "uterus havers"?

It'll soon turn to a dystopia unless we fight back...with common sense...or maybe this will be a flop in history that we look back at and laugh?

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean "people who menstruate" and "uterus haver" only means something to us because we were educated when we were younger that this pertains only to girls/women/females. What the hell kind of diagrams are going to be in health class textbooks? What are they going to call the female body since even that's taboo now? Is there not going to be any diagrams because "female genitalia comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors and who's to say what normal is?"

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Attention seeking idiots want to be seen as oppressed underdogs so they invent their own identities and act like the its obscurity makes them victims.

I still don't know where this separate sex/gender thing came from. Up until about 10 years ago I'd always understood 'gender' to be the word you used when you meant sex but in contexts where saying the word sex would be weird or inappropriate

[–]marmorsymphata 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As someone who is constantly, unwantedly overloaded by sexualization of women every fucking day of my life, just by living in the 21st century: Where and how, exactly, do these people suppose straight women and gay men have been socially conditioned to be cock obsessed?

Even this involves the expression of sex, and not genitals themselves. It takes a pretty direct, carnal brainwashing to create the kind of artificial fetishistic obsession they're talking about. Where is it in our culture that straight up cock is enforced anyway? I've certainly never seen a naked cock on television, or even in film. Considering the dominance of straight men in our media, male genitalia is generally talked about as something disgusting or funny, sometimes violent, but almost never something intimately sexual. Big/small dick talk is about men one-upping or shaming each other, and not really about sexual pleasure.

And beyond the pop culture: Do these people think our parents are lecturing us about how good cock is? Health class, maybe? If it doesn't start with our families, where does this kind of socio-cultural enforcement come from? Certainly not from other teens that have had sex already talking with us, because since they have orientations by which to choose partners this supposes they have already been contaminated with the genitalfetishistic germ.

So if it's not from the media, and not from the family, and not from our peers, and not from our schools, where does it come from?

Perhaps AGPs think everyone watches porn all day every day from childhood? Perhaps that is what they do?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sexual preferences are a spectrum, not just an on/off-value"

There is lots of validity in this statement but likely not in the way being assumed and presented by the person.

There are a bunch of man loving and woman loving genes which can be expressed or not and it's true that they are not on off switches. It's more like a bunch of dimmer switches and they can be off or slightly on or cranked up to any level depending on epigenetics. Also the preference is only changeable within the orientation dictated by the epigenetic expression.