all 37 comments

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 33 insightful - 1 fun33 insightful - 0 fun34 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Lots of older members were not happy, but were bullied by the newer members.

How it starts.

The gay men? They've just all quietly left.

And how it ends.

It’s not enough to be part of the same group physically. You have to spiritually be a part of that group. The younger members who bullied the older members should have been kicked out, not just for the bullying, but also for advocating that the group be watered down. Maybe the group would have still died eventually, but at least it would have died with dignity as opposed to fading away into a slow death. In fact, there is a chance that the group would have survived, because then younger gay men who see through the bullshit will join the group and keep the spirit of that group alive. In order to be exclusive, you have to exclude people who try to change the fundamentals characteristics of that group.

I hear a lot about how young gay men and boys are whinging about how oppressed they are even though they have it better than older gay men. And I also hear a lot about how these same young gay men and boys treat older gay men poorly. It’s disgusting. But I am going to have to be blunt and acknowledge that older gay men are partly responsible because they tolerated this type of behaviour from these youths. At the same time, if most gay men under 30 are disrespectful shits to their elders, then why should we feel sorry for them if western countries start adopting laws similar to laws in Russia and Hungary?

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As usual, good points from you.

You have to spiritually be a part of that group.

Yes, that sense of deep connection to one another is very important.

In order to be exclusive, you have to exclude people who try to change the fundamentals characteristics of that group.

And to connect these points, the glue that held the group together was our connection to one another as a brotherhood of gay men. The crux of the opposition was a hostility towards that brotherhood, seen from the outside, such that we were eventually told that wanting to experience that sense of brotherhood with one another by excluding those who were not like us actually made us bad people.

It's like a band where members are playing well together because they share a musical vision. Then other people want to join the band who aren't on the same page. Yet they want to be "centered" and demand it on the basis of their declared oppression rather than a sense of spiritual connection.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re correct. We as gay men used to have a brotherhood, now it’s gone, because we didn’t appreciate how important it was.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you you remake it with the old members?

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's complicated. I think older men creeping on younger men is a real thing, and young men put up barriers to protect themselves. But also, younger men have trouble conceiving of a man's value in any other way but sexual, so they discount the value of elders.

When I was a young gay man I intrinsically understood that someday I would be old (the gods willing) and thus treated older men the way I would want to be treated when I was older. (But also, since I have generally preferred older men sexually, I was sometimes attracted to them so there's that.)

I only know a handful of young gay men in real life now, and I tend to think they are silly. In my professional life I serve as mentors to several people, most of them younger straight men (well I have one direct report I'm not sure about but even still I think he is more likely straight). I enjoy the mentoring because I do care about "giving back" to younger generations. It's a pity that many younger gay men have trouble seeing the benefit in having older gay male (platonic) mentors, but I guess that's life.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I am aware that some older gay men prey on younger gay men, so I can understand why some younger gay men might put up barriers. It’s still not okay to be rude, dismissive or intimidating to other people. A lot of younger gay men take for granted how lucky they are compared to their elders.

I will admit, I do have a thing for older men. My only concern is bringing a man 15-20 years older than me home to my parents. I’m sure they’d be accepting and I’m just overthinking it, but it just feels weird to me. But I’ve given up seeking out gay men close to my age, because they don’t seem to exist in my town, or they don’t respond, or they’re not what I’m looking for. Maybe I should give men in their 30’s and 40’s a chance - I’m 26 by the way.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Me too. I definitely much more attracted to older women. Anything under 25 is a turnoff, most of the time. I like maturity, knowing yourself and also maybe I search for a bit of protection feeling

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t have a lot of experience with relationships, so having an older boyfriend makes a lot more sense for me.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here's a thing about older men. When you're 26, a fit 46-year-old can be hot. But when you're 56, it's hard to think of any hot 76 year old. When I was about your age I met a very handsome, very fit military guy who was 25 years my senior. We had a fling but it never worked out (we were geographically challenged, he was not particularly available emotionally, plus DADT was in effect back then). I'm now a little older than he was when we met, we're still friends, and he is still in decent shape for a man in his mid-70s. But I'm glad we never made it as a couple because the difference in life stage is painfully obvious to me.

Even ignoring differences in life stage: it's one thing to pair up when you're both relatively healthy, it's another to be middle-aged and dealing with the considerable health problems of your geriatric partner. My husband, who is 6 years older than I am, has some health problems but I don't mind because we are in the same risk bracket (and I'm developing my own share of issues). However, if I was having to care for somebody who has severe health problems at the same time that I was trying to consolidate my career, I might have a little bit of resentment. More importantly, my husband and I are developmentally at the same stage (say, Erikson stage 7).

On a side note, that ex-military friend of mine has complained about being excluded by younger men when he goes to church (inclusive church with many LGBs). But I know that he is radiating a creeper vibe, even without intending to. I feel bad for him, but I also think he could have had any man he wanted when he was younger and now is paying the price for being too picky and too emotionally stunted.

In your case: you could plausibly have a good relationship with somebody in their 30s, but more than a 10-year age gap would create a lot of problems because you'd be in very different developmental stages.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The erikson stages are very accurate. Anyway, ageing is something that worries me, especially ageing single, that's my fear. I suppose if it difficult to find people when younger it must to be even more difficult when older, as the small poll is even smaller. How many gay people in older age are there, older as 60 and 70 years old and how is the dating poll at that age?

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All good points. If I date a man 20 years my senior, and we have the same life expectancy, I’m going to live a life similar to your ex military friend for the last 20 years of my life. I prefer to date men less than 10 years older than me.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Im sorry you lost your group. It's always sad when you lose that.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 26 insightful - 2 fun26 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And the thing is, once the TRAs have "won," the whole thing dies. They can't seem to keep it going. I wonder if the very fact of shared trans identity is uncomfortable to them because it reminds them of something that, paradoxically, they talk about all the time while somehow wishing that it's not what they were.

[–]RiverSong 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's because they have no real interest in the whole thing from the very beginning. They join groups for all sorts of subjects mainly to post stuff like "I'm a trans enby lesbian, AMAB, autistic, disabled ... and I once insert subject of the group, am I welcome here?"

Then they wait for the validation, the groveling and the "welcome, you are valid, YAAAAS Queen, UWU"

All the sane people wonder what happened to their group, quietly leave (like you said), and the TQ+ leaves as well, because they never had any interest in anything that doesn't revolve around them and their validation anyway, and there are no other persons left to give them what they came for.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder if the very fact of shared trans identity is uncomfortable to them because it reminds them of something that, paradoxically, they talk about all the time while somehow wishing that it's not what they were.

This is so perceptive. Yeah, that's always the fly in the trans-ointment, isn't it? That the very identity which they demand respect for (or, more accurately, deference to), proclaim to have pride in, and generally WILL NOT STFU ABOUT... comes down to, "I cannot accept who I really am". Talk about cognitive dissonance! No wonder they're such a pissy, unpleasant bunch. They're perpetually trying to square the circle of living a lie AND making that a cause for celebration (somehow). Maybe that's why they're so toxic towards people like yourself: you remind them that they ARE living a lie... because you refuse to. And LGB people like you have worked hard, and taken a lot of risks, to openly be yourselves. Which makes their "I'm so PROUD of DENYING WHO I AM!1!" shtick look pretty pathetic... not to mention disgusting.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The TRA's are here as well. We have a few posters that advocate TRA mentality and they get updoots from their buddies. Our mods are not covering it so I expect this half dead place to die fully soon as well.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

I encountered a post from a transgender who objected to my comment where I said transgender people shouldn’t be in the military nor the police. On this very sub. I stand by what I’ve said.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

We have a few people (you can find them in the 50+ post thread about bi people) trying to force the idea that pan = bi and that women who are lesbians in a relationship with a trans woman are in lesbian relationships. I've reported the posts but nothing happened. Maybe others can as well? If needed I can link them.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ok, you're just straight up lying and twisting people's words. People are simply saying they don't think pan is even a legitimate thing, because sexual orientation is based on sex. And people weren't saying that "lesbians" in relationships with transwomen are in lesbian relationships, they were talking about lesbians dating transmen. As in transgender-identified biological females.

Like I personally as a lesbian would never want to date a transman. But there's some lesbians out there who don't mind. A relationship between a lesbian and a transman is a relationship between two biological females, it isn't straight. I'd never demand that the lesbian should have to call herself bi or straight, that's ridiculous.

The same goes for bisexuals. All people are saying is that trans people are included within the scope of bisexuality because they're still either male or female. Demanding that any bi people who have ever dated a trans person should have to call themselves "pan" is just as ridiculous to me as saying that a lesbian dating a transgender-identified female should have to call herself bi/straight. That doesn't mean people think bisexuals are obligated to include trans people in their dating pool.

And just to make sure this is absolutely crystal clear: I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people.

I'd never tell any bisexual that they're obligated to date trans people, any more than I'd tell any lesbian that she's obligated to date transmen. I'm simply stating that trans people still exist within the scope of sexual orientation based on their birth sex. Most lesbians probably wouldn't be interested in transmen, but there are some who are, and that doesn't make them not homosexual. Most bisexuals probably wouldn't be interested in trans people of either sex, but there are some who are, and that doesn't make them not bisexual.

"Pansexual" isn't even a legit thing to me. Sexuality is based on sex, and there's only two sexes. Like what does it even mean really? Attraction to "all sexes"? There's only two sexes, male and female, and transwomen are male and transmen are female. So if anything you're the one who's pushing "TRA mentality". You're the one who's implying that sexuality is based on gender instead of sex and that trans people can ever become anything other than their birth sex. Like people believing that transwomen can be anything other than male or than transmen can be anything other than female is the whole reason why this sub has to exist.

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

Yea. This sub has gone to dogshit. Im out.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I’ll help you report them. Direct them to me.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's me. The dude is trying to say pan and bisexual aren't the same thing, which is dumb. They're only 3 sexualities (het, homo and bi) as sexuality is only based on sex, and trans aren't a third sex. Pansexual is just a word for bi who likes also trans, but it still bi's, that doesn't mean all bi like trans, but all so called pans are bi's.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I always thought pan was the same as bi as well just in a "queer" coat.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The way people have used it in conversation with me has always meant that they were bisexual WITH an attraction to trans people as well. It is a useful clarification that helps people to know what other people might be open to. Just as "lesbian" and "gay" have specific meanings and have for a very long time, so does "bisexual," so a term that clarifies this additional form of attraction is warranted. We don't want to be harassed and pressured to sleep with trans people, either, for obvious reasons. If someone wants to signal they are open to trans people, it's perfectly fair for them to have their own term. It simplifies and makes safer for all involved the search for prospective mates, just as the other terms do. Lumping in bisexual people with "attracted to trans people" gives trans people the impression they can debate us about who we are attracted to. They can't. Just like they can't debate lesbians and gay men.

If we don't clarify our terms we can't communicate in a way that everyone understands. So no, they are not the same. This should be easy to understand without claiming that someone is trying to declare a fourth sexual orientation. The term pansexual is in wide use already and is used (by those who see themselves as such) for this particular purpose in my experience, so it might as well continue. Splitting hairs about what it should mean is pointless. It works well enough as-is.

Let's stick with understanding the spirit of what this term means rather than trying to invalidate it by forcing it to conform to a taxonomy of sexual orientations. Let them have their term; it gives the rest of us bisexuals a break from harassment.

This isn't hard to grasp. It really isn't.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yea about those term definitions... that ship has sailed a long time ago.

I don't think i ever heard the pan is including transpeople and bi not thing used like that in the last 5 years or so.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've heard it many times in the last several years.

And this is a good example of why keeping terminology clearly defined is essential.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it can be used as a way to not really specify what sex(es) one is into, and yet appear sexually "open-minded"(a bi stereotype and a liberal goal) at the same time. I liken it to answering someone inquiring if one has Dual Citizenship from Country A and Country B, just with the declaration of "I'm a citizen of the world!"

So, it has the benefit of virtue signaling one's so-called open-mindedness with the presumed bonus of avoiding being a target of criticism from TRAs. The latter is of course nowhere near guaranteed because people seeking gender validation are a elite class of mental gymnasts in themselves and nowadays even Pan may not cut it.

But, I'll link to the historical explanation from someone who seems to know a lot more than me about this relatively ancient term.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with both your guys' takes, that makes a lot of sense. A fascinating example of what humans will do to seek social approval. Thank you for sharing!

(And I miss u/haveanicedaytoo; not sure if she's taking a break again or what, but she was awesome.)

edit: Meant to respond over here, whoops.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The dude is trying to say pan and bisexual aren't the same thing, which is dumb. They're only 3 sexualities (het, homo and bi) as sexuality is only based on sex, and trans aren't a third sex. Pansexual is just a word for bi who likes also trans, but it still bi's, that doesn't mean all bi like trans, but all so called pans are bi's.

Well, I think that they AREN'T the same thing, conceptually-- "bisexual" means being attracted to both of the two sexes; "pan" means being attracted to 3+ sexes (i.e., "sex is a spectrum"), and/or to "all genders" (i.e., sexual attraction is based on gender, not biological sex). So pan really REFUTES bi. Because trans ideology won't accept either that there are only two sexes, or that sexual orientation is based on attraction to one or both of them, rather than "gender". Essentially it's a made-up sexual orientation, required to give the illusion that made-up identities like "non-binary" are actually legit.

I do suspect that pan is what wokesters think bi OUGHT to be: totally-uninhibited, no-boundaries, DTF-anyone-and-everyone... their ideal of the ultimate in "non-exclusionary, ultra-inclusive" sexuality. Which bisexuals are a complete failure at, obviously, so they dreamed up an orientation tailor-made for their fantasies about how human sexuality should work. And, yeah, I'm sure that there are bisexuals who call themselves pan... but there are gay and straight people doing it, too, and it's equally inaccurate for all of them.

[–]justagaydude123 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As long as they were following rule 1 why is that so offensive? Is this place to be an echo chamber where no dissenting opinions are allowed?

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

I doubt that

[–]millicentfawcett 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Have you considered approaching LGNews with an article about the demise of your group? It's the sort of thing a wider audience needs to hear is happening.

I'm sorry it's gone, it sounds like it was a solid support network for a lot of years. The importance of such cameraderie shouldn't be dismissed like this.

[–]Rag3 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That’s a great idea.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, unfortunately this is a really clear example and it sucks. I'm sorry that happened to your space.

I think in all of these cases, an effort to resurrect those spaces as originally conceived is warranted, though of course finding people who are willing to endure the abuse as moderators is not easy. I hope you find a worthwhile substitute for this forum at some point. Clearly proper vetting of mods is crucial to avoiding this kind of takeover.

If we don't stand up and resist this type of thing, it will never end, because they will experience success after success. And they shouldn't. What they do is harmful. Consistent boundary enforcement via moderation is essential.

[–]filbs111 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So many subcultures also destroyed in this fashion. By people not at all interested until the subculture is fully accepted by the mainstream. That's when they kick out everyone who had a hand in building it by labeling them Gatekeeping Bigots.

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Having lost a few spaces over the years because the people in charge mismanaged it despite being very clearly warned about what wasn't working, I feel your pain (and I'm only 27 going on 28).

Unfortunately, that's also why the push for everything digital has such a shitty outcome, especially for gay men and lesbian women. You cannot control who joins. You cannot control who participates. You cannot set boundaries by slamming the door or moving around like nomads.