all 20 comments

[–]gloomy_bear 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

One of the reasons why it's still private is all to do with a proud goldstar lesbian, and mentioning homophobia in the radfem community on ovarit. When the mods didn't like it, they privated the sub. I agree it is pathetic that it's still privated, and I even sent them a message to get in the sub. Never got a response back.

[–]jay-day 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

It's still being private is really funny though. I know that them dogpiling me because I'm a gold star was what caused it but I didn't know that me bringing up homophobia in the radfem community was also an issue. Gay men also did that, were they also kicked out?

[–]gloomy_bear 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I've heard of plenty of homosexuals being kicked out/banned for being anti-radfem. Idk why, but I've saw many people getting offended by you being a goldstar. I have no dog in this fight, but you have every right to be proud of being a goldstar. I can understand silverstars being real lesbians (or had sex once and only once with another male but never again), but there's many replies saying MEN/plural. I looked in the archives of your posts on archive.vn btw. Like uh no. No real lesbian does it multiple times. That's called being bisexual. I am a bisexual woman and I am pro goldstar & platinum star.

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

Gay men also did that, were they also kicked out?

Yes.

[–]jjdub7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and then they wonder why bisexuals sometimes get a bad rap...

(no shade to my bi compatriots, I can separate opinions from the crowd)

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

It really is pathetic. I joined Saidit specifically because of LGBDropTheT, but without it, most of the site is now nothing but obnoxious right-wingers with their blatant homophobia. The successor communities (including this one) are basically vacant shadows of LGBDTT. All over yet another pathetic jannie squabble and temper tantrum.

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

I actually welcome the blatant homophobia, and what follows is my consideration of it.

It's a rare thing nowadays to find someone willing to voice their honest opinion. The Internet provides, and the Internet censors; more frequently. I also harbor nothing against a person experiencing what is often a visceral reaction. How could I say that homosexuality is innate, but simultaneously deny that someone else might have an innate, negative reaction to it? Innateness, of course, being the justification of the former, but not the latter. That's not a fair shake. I could also mention that heterosexual behavior can produce disapprobation, but the mechanism is justified differently. We don't let heterosexual couples have at it in the grocery store, right? Yet, the underlying mechanism--aimed at propriety--very well could be the same. I hold no double standard, and it is in this, that I think one can find common ground with the common sentiment on this site. Excesses, in any formulation, are subject to curtailment, no?

I don't think that the common Saidittor is necessarily concerning themselves with homosexuality. Rather, it is the unheard-of-here, now-common activist who is scrutinized--who wants to round up some, but not all, atypical formulations of sexuality into one big cohort--LGBTQ+--and have out their personal pathology with it. Trans of course being the hot topic. There is a curious calculus about who is included, and who is not. I'll posit that various formulations of human sexuality, uncommon as they may be, confound the popular initialism. Some are popular, others are not. What gets included, what gets excluded, and why? It is merely what is fashionable--be wary.

That trans is gay 2.0. That the constituent letters in the initialism are a "community." Nonesuch. That the Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Trans folk, nevermind what comes after the plus, all know each other, like each other, and share a common goal? Certainly not! That's not a definition of community.

More broadly, now.

Another reply indicated that... I shall provide an interpretation now--a person of the following constitution--proud, gold-star, lesbian, radfem--that thus a person so constituted could have badgered an entire philosophy into hiding? I didn't expect such cowardice. I'm ashamed on your behalf--myself being a person who is different; thought I shouldn't need mention it. Peace comes from within, not from without. I saw such strength just months ago, and now I can only formulate your objection to the trans phenomena as that of your own insecurity. Imagine achieving ones' own goals yet those that drive oneself further into isolation. This is my most important point--success means succession? You are not whole. You are shadows of what you could be. You are not you. Be more. Do more. Know more. Lead. I am thus here, and I am at peace with myself.

Can you not do the same? Can you not find it in yourself to be my bulwark? Can you not back me up?

My reaction follows:

Oh come off it. How many times have I thus heard that transsexualism has been decided in a smoke-filled backroom by men drinking expensive whiskey? If there is any patriarchal conspiracy, it is thus: men have put rather tasty morsels of food in glass jars with the lids on so tight that only males can extricate the contents. A rather simple, but effective conspiracy, if I were to engage in such a thing. Women, obviously, can be fascinated by a piece of ripe food.

I've never been invited to these meetings, I'll have you know. Perhaps I don't have sufficient misogyny, to deprive them of tasty foods, sans my testosterone-grown muscles.

When all else fails to make the math come out, that a conspiracy is required, I suggest that you don't have full grasp of the subject matter.

[–]jjdub7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed 100% on people being allowed to speak their mind, homophobia or whatever. I literally could not care less if fundies sit there and quote Leviticus or from Saint Paul the Reformed Murderer at me.

The implications of silencing speech are way, way worse.

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

It's incredibly sad and pathetic that they shut down over some relatively minor disagreement concerning goldstars and non-goldstars. I think the DropTheT movement is starting to gain some traction. It was trending on twitter a few days ago, and I'm starting to gain some hope that it can be successful. I initally thought they temporarily shut down as a joke for pride month or something. Now it's just ridiculous.

If we want to build the movement, we must have major central hubs for discussion about it, outside of invite-only radfem websites. Especially since this issue concerns all LGB members (obviously lesbians are by far the most affected but still), it's important to have a central hub for all LGB of many different political stripes to discuss this issue. Not just radfem L's and female B's.

I understand that constant forced teaming is part of the problem of why we got here in the first place, and why our spaces are being taken away from us, but for central issues like this, I think it's important that all LGB cooperate together if we want to tackle this issue successfully. Silly infighting about who's the gayest be damned. I hope they reopen one day. The sooner, the better.

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

On second thought, what does being a gold-star lesbian have to do with it.?

Is there not such a thing as a gold-star gay? Such a term is not in common parlance, at all. Why not? Is there no such thing as a gold-star gay? Gold-star--look at the connotations of those words--is only applied to women. What fresh hell is this?

Just by the numbers, we must have gold-star gays. Yet, they're not flaunting it around.

If we could figure out that disparity, then I think we would all be better off.

A weird sort of social capital, really, what sex you have had sex with. Noun, verb.

Do men not much care? Likely. Do women afford more importance to these topics? Seems to be.

They're both subject to similar societal pressures to find the "right" sex, but yet only one seems to make a big fuss about it.

My intuition is thus: gay men comprise one class. Lesbian-identified women comprise at least two. Not every gay women cares about the label. Some do, some do not. No gay men care, whatsoever.

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Is there not such a thing as a gold-star gay? Such a term is not in common parlance, at all.

It actually is. The term actually originated with gays, partly as a joke. Whee you get a little star for not having to torment yourself by trying to have heterosexual sex.

Lesbians are more concerned with this subject because of the hordes of non-lesbians who call themselves lesbians. That doesn't happen as much with gays because of their status. No guy wants to call himself gay unless he absolutely 100% is.

edit: changed "by" to "into"

[–]gloomy_bear 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I know a few bi dudes who call themselves gay, it just doesn't happen as much as bi women calling themselves lesbians.

[–]usehername 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's true. They generally do it when they're severe masochists. It's a lot less common than with lesbians, but they still outnumber actual gays. Didn't mean to gloss over the issue.

[–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nah it's fine. Sometimes people don't realise it happens with homosexual males or forget it happens.

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was just making a different point but downplayed that issue in my wording.

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I disagree that "gold star" is meaningful as an identity for gay and bi men. That's all. I think your reply, by my experience, is an invention--one that is designed to satisfy women. As if men and women were equivalent in these topics. I don't think so.

I do take well your point about heterosexual or bisexual women with a lesbian identity, but I think that is readily juxtaposed with men who want to be "100% sure." And could one ever be 100% sure? (Reductio ad absurdum--has one met everyone of the opposite sex?) This is the constant anxiety that men who are fond of men face. And if we're being terribly honest, you see that anxiety playing out day-by-day. It's not just pure hedonism that motivates gay and bisexual men.

So we've come full-circle in some regards. Both for men, and for women.

The social disapprobation for men being fond of their own sex is vastly larger than that of women. By Western, heterosexual standards, women into women is "hot," and if you will excuse me for a moment, entirely heteronormative--for the enjoyment of men. (Touching on feminism there.) I don't think anyone has really evaluated men's interest in women-women relationships wrt. paraphilia as women's interest in male-male relationships as the same. But heck, new horizons. The latter being a recent topic of investigation. Both are porn categories--really, they are--and they may not be for the same reasons. But each taken on its own is rather telling.

I don't give a good god damn about what should be, and would rather concern myself with the way things are, and after which, we can sort out the morality, and moral hazards that follow. But I won't try and obscure anything that's topically relevant.

[–]usehername 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm tired but I'll try and drum up a decent response.

I think your reply, by my experience, is an invention--one that is designed to satisfy women.

What in the world does this mean?

And circling back to your previous comment:

Gold-star--look at the connotations of those words--is only applied to women.

No one is maliciously or inconsistently "applying these words to women." Gays and lesbians apply the term to themselves. I guess when lesbians apply the term to themselves it's being "applied to women" ... by the lesbians themselves or sometimes the bisexuals who are feeling bitter over it. "Gold star" has always been a lighthearted term. When lesbians chose to adopt it from gays, they took it a little more seriously (at least lately) as a way to differentiate themselves from all the fake lesbians.

I think that is readily juxtaposed with men who want to be "100% sure." And could one ever be 100% sure? (Reductio ad absurdum--has one met everyone of the opposite sex?) This is the constant anxiety that men who are fond of men face.

Homosexuals of both sexes face this equally so I'm not sure what your reasoning behind only applying it to males is.

The social disapprobation for men being fond of their own sex is vastly larger than that of women. By Western, heterosexual standards, women into women is "hot," and if you will excuse me for a moment, entirely heteronormative--for the enjoyment of men.

Lesbianism is fetishized because it' more acceptable socially. Gayness is now reaching the levels of acceptability where straight women fetishize it and it's unfortunately a sign of their status in society increasing (not unfortunate that their status is increasing, just unfortunate that the "good sign" is fetishization, still it's an improvement over pure disgust).

By Western, heterosexual standards, women into women is "hot," and if you will excuse me for a moment, entirely heteronormative--for the enjoyment of men. (Touching on feminism there.)

"Heteronormativity" is not a term associated with feminism. It's about homosexual status and struggles. And is commenting on straight women flicking the bean to violent fantasies of 99% straight dudes obliterating some gay boy in his basement (a reference to Killing, Stalking, an incredibly popular yaoi comic written by a straight woman which has won awards) somehow "meninism" because it involves a male homosexual being violated in a way?

wrt.

Sorry I don't know what this means so the sentence containing it is incomprehensible to me, so my next interpretation might be wrong:

I don't think anyone has really evaluated men's interest in women-women relationships wrt. paraphilia as women's interest in male-male relationships as the same.

Are you saying straight dudes jerking to lesbian porn (or rather "lesbian porn", usually two straight girls directed by a straight guy to try not to cringe while barely touching each other) is not paraphilia, but straight chicks masturbating to gay porn (or rather "gay porn", usually some drawing of two males by a straight woman), is paraphilia? If so, what is the reason for the inconsistency? But again I could be wrong because I'm lost at "wrt."

I don't give a good god damn about what should be, and would rather concern myself with the way things are, and after which, we can sort out the morality, and moral hazards that follow. But I won't try and obscure anything that's topically relevant.

Ok? Are you implying that I did do that? Or am doing the opposite?

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you saying straight dudes jerking to lesbian porn (or rather "lesbian porn", usually two straight girls directed by a straight guy to try not to cringe while barely touching each other) is not paraphilia, but straight chicks masturbating to gay porn (or rather "gay porn", usually some drawing of two males by a straight woman), is paraphilia? If so, what is the reason for the inconsistency? But again I could be wrong because I'm lost at "wrt."

No, it's a fair point, and you did perfectly note the inconsistency.

In short, yes. Which at first seems to be a rather indefensible thing to say. FF for men is "normal" (there are no penises...) and MM for women is paraphilia (there's at least two penises.) It only appears to be an unfair thing to say if you consider male and female sexuality to be equivalent. That men and women are possessed of the same sexual desire and nature? Right? It also depends on your personal take on the huge variety of paraphilia, since given as a singular category.

fake lesbians

Drowning in them, aren't we? AGP...

This is what I was hinting at, however. You've got a phrase for it, your words, and below I make a comment regarding "lesbian porn."

usually some drawing

You're making my point. Concepts vs reality. Porn vs the written word. I'm not here to say that concepts I would not like to realize are not intriguing, that I've never enjoyed some artistic renditions, I'm just quite curious why those things aren't realized on video.

straight dudes jerking to lesbian porn (or rather "lesbian porn", usually two straight girls directed by a straight guy to try not to cringe while barely touching each other)

In agreement. It's horribly off-putting, isn't it? And yet, it's published, because it suffices. Yet I've never seen a bit of (male-male) gay porn that I felt was inauthentic. Quite the opposite.

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

FF for men is "normal" (there are no penises...) and MM for women is paraphilia (there's at least two penises.)

So... you're defining whether or not a certain act is "paraphilia" based on the number of penises involved?

It only appears to be an unfair thing to say if you consider male and female sexuality to be equivalent.

Equivalent how? How would anyone have sex if they all exclusively wanted to do the exact same acts to each other? There's a compatibility issue.

It's also odd that you would categorize sexuality into "men and women." The idea that all males have the same sexuality and all females have the same sexuality. I think you forgot about the existence of homosexuality. What it seems to imply is that there is absolutely zero difference between the sexuality of heterosexuals and homosexuals (of the same sex) other than the target. This is wrong.

"fake lesbians" - Drowning in them, aren't we? AGP...

I was referring to bisexual women.

Yet I've never seen a bit of (male-male) gay porn that I felt was inauthentic. Quite the opposite.

Maybe you haven't seen much yaoi lol. But as far as video porn, you can tell that they're sometimes not into it when they just don't seem to be enjoying it and then there's a cut where one or both clearly take a viagra lol. But that's usually only when they're really sexually incompatible, like two very feminine gay guys. Straight guys are more into "double the chicks", while straight women are more into "let's watch this big man destroy some little gay boy".

I'm not here to say that concepts I would not like to realize are not intriguing, that I've never enjoyed some artistic renditions, I'm just quite curious why those things aren't realized on video.

They are realized on video lol. The difference between perceived authenticity is because straight men like to see two very feminine women having sex, they aren't often attracted to actual lesbians, so it's two straight/bihet women. Whereas straight women fetishize the dynamic between a very feminine gay boy who gets destroyed by a masculine bisexual male, which is even more insidious than some straight guy thinking "nice, 4 tits." "Lesbian" porn for straight guys generally involves 0 actual homosexuals, while "gay" porn for straight women generally involves 1 actual homosexual.

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you forgot about the existence of homosexuality.

I didn't, though. Men who desire men are possessed of a female-typical desire, (who desires masculine men, most frequently? Roughly half the population.) and women who desire women are possessed of a male-typical one (who desires feminine women most frequently? Again, about half of every person.) especially when you look only at the physiological aspects. Sure, there are higher-order effects. No doubt.

What it seems to imply is that there is absolutely zero difference between the sexuality of heterosexuals and homosexuals (of the same sex) other than the target. This is wrong.

This is my point, and I'll gladly entertain your take on it. In all seriousness, I think you can see where I'm coming at from this. Everything else is the same! The only variance is male/female, it's... It's just who you want to have sex with. Phenotypical, adult, consenting partners. The anatomy may differ, certainly, and the attendant activities thus differ, but the desire is one based on sex, sex matters. Top/bottom roles among men? What does that reflect?

Maybe you haven't seen much yaoi....

No, but there's something to be said about that, isn't there? Why is it constrained to artistic rendition? Art, literature, as opposed to the domain of the videographer? That has to be resolved.