I was for Team Cock until it choked in the semifinals.
Serious LGBT Discussion -
- Thread starter bearycool
- Start date
I was for Team Cock until it choked in the semifinals.
Yeah, but the Vaginas take themselves so seriously.
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
- Highlight
- #1,483
The point is that the worldview of many of these groups enables pedophiles or individuals who promote some perverse variety of sexual libertinism. Transgender/transsexual movements rooted in these ideologies are particularly dangerous, since it potentially involves irreversible genital removal, or taking drugs to alter one's body chemistry.
Groups like "incels" which are rooted in the same far-left ideology have also been birthed by the dangerous worldviews of these these movements:
(e.x. "Not being able to get laid because you're a creep" is now being touted as a "protected sexual minority status/identity" alongside homosexuality"; "access to sex" is being touted as a "civil rights movement" or "basic human right/need" on par with food or water, which one is "entitled to" simply because they exist, regardless of notions like "consent".
I've run into individuals who identified as "gay", "bi", or something else arguing laws against molesting children are just "social construct" invented for sexual repression; infamous authors such as the Marquis de Sade also touted similar views in regards to pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, and so on - essentially arguing that man's nature was "no different than that of any other beast or animal", and therefore imposing any notion of modesty or sexual restraint on people - even fathers who wanted to rape and murder their daughters, people who wanted to molest children and animals - was nothing more than "sexual repression or "control" over people.
It wouldn't shock me if a good percentage of pro-pedophilia groups, incel groups (a la Nathan Larson), and others, were directly inspired by de Sade and related authors. (There are LGBT-affiliated groups which even reference de Sade as though he were some type of inspiration or role model):
Marquis (magazine)
Marquis is a fetish magazine owned, operated, published and primarily photographed by Peter W. Czernich. Based in Germany, Marquis covers a wide array of topics related to the worldwide fetish subculture. The magazine's name is a reference to the Marquis de Sade. Czernich's original publishing...
No, we're talking specifically about views that gender is an oppressive "social construct" invented by a conspiracy theory sans any biological factors; or that institutions such as the family or views against pedophilia, zoophilia, etc are "sexual repression".
The point is that gender roles weren't invented as part of some "conspiracy theory", they arose - for good or bad - from various factors including biological ones.
Biology plays a role in the predominance of males who perform a "warrior" role (this is true in the animal kingdom as well, such as in ant colonies or lion packs, where the males primarily fill the role of fighting or defending the colony or pack from attackers).
In practice, if women are capable of fulfilling the roles, then historically they have been allowed to in may instances (even in Medieval Europe, Joan of Arc was a military leader, though this was a very rare exception).
I'm not aware of any era or historical period where women didn't potentially perform some "work" or another. If anything, in the 19th-20th women of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to work in menial jobs because they had to to support their family.
Unless a family was middle-upper middle class, it would be unusual for a husband to able to afford to support an entire family on a single income, and for a woman to do no work at all. (Even today, the same would be true in a lot of cases, regardless of which partner was doing most of the income-earning).
19th and early 20th century | Striking Women
Most [no-lexicon]working class[/no-lexicon] women in Victorian England had no choice but to undertake paid work in order to help support their families. Women worked in factories, in domestic service, in family businesses and carried out [no-lexicon]home-based work[/no-lexicon] such as finishing...
Most working class women in Victorian England had no choice but to work in order to help support their families. They worked either in factories, or in domestic service for richer households or in family businesses. Many women also carried out home-based work such as finishing garments and shoes for factories, laundry, or preparation of snacks to sell in the market or streets. This was in addition to their unpaid work at home which included cooking, cleaning, child care and often keeping small animals and growing vegetables and fruit to help feed their families.
Overall, circumstances such as family, economics, and practical realities have had more of a direct influence on these things than any specific "era". (Whether ancient Greece or the Victorian era, women such as Sappho of Lesbos, or Marie Curie had access to better "career" and self-actualization options than women of lesser means today would - obviously winning the "family/parent" lottery had a large factor in it, something which still obviously applies, at least as much as a woman whose parents were both wealthy businesspeople would have a better foundation to start with than a woman who's parents both worked menial jobs).
Other than gender roles which are cemented into law, such as laws which expect parents to provide for their children, "roles" are not and have never been absolute, and are ultimately just private contracts or agreements which couples negotiate with each other, adapting to the present circumstances (such as widowed fathers staying at home with children).
I'm not sure what you mean by "living under one roof" - if anything this was (and still is) an economic luxury for people with the financial means or desire to own a home - people with less financial assets both in the 20th century and today would be more likely to take assistance from relatives, rent an apartment, or so forth.
(This also varies by region - in New York city, for example, only about 33% of people own a home, and only 36% own cars).
Monogamy is primarily a cultural or rational notion, rather than "biological" - I don't know of anyone who makes this argument, not to mention that polygamy has existed and still exists in some countries (it's obvious that men or women's biological urges can influence them to cheat or have "casual sex").
I'm not aware of any 1st world country in which monogamy is not seen as a positive ideal (while polygamy is primarily associated with undeveloped or 3rd world living conditions).
Modesty as a social concept goes beyond pure survivalism - I'm aware that specific standards of modesty vary from culture to culture, or era to era, however some cross-cultural notion of modesty is universal.
The claim of "socialization" also isn't absolute - since obviously it doesn't explain how new constructs were invented to begin with.
The authors of new "constructs" were not "socialized", but came up with them on the basis of various logical or rational arguments.
Saying otherwise would be like saying that "people who play Nintendo games only do so because their parents used to play NES" - obviously that's not the case as far as the invention of home-video game consoles like the NES, and their popularization with people to begin with.
Even in the US, or in theories on the arts, nudity is not automatically "pornography/obscenity". (You're more than welcome to read US Common Law definitions on the subject).
I never said "restraint" was biological - if anything, restraint is a rational notion; restraint is the reason that people of higher socio-economic status have fewer children than people of lower status, and why smarter people don't have 5 kids with 5 different baby mommies / daddies on welfare by age 16 - so most who have any amount of life ambition beyond being a baby-making factory would agree it's a good thing.
If by "gay", you mean wants to have sex with other men, then no.
The point is, "gay" is a social construct by your own arguments - actual law on issues like "same-sex marriage" don't care what a person "identifies" as - they just acknowledge unions between 2 people of the same sex. (Much as how terms like "LGBT" or "gay" are used to argue that "being gay/homosexual" is 100% genetic, for political rather than factual reasons).
There are plenty of examples of people engaging in same-sex activity, but not identifying as "gay", "homosexual", or anything else, for example:
*A convict who would punch you out if you called him "gay" will still have sex with other men in prison.
*In ancient Rome, it was only considered "gay" if you were the one being penetrated, rather than doing the penetration.
In addition, some people will only use the term "gay" if they think it suits their argument, for example:
*Some people will argue that "Ted Haggart was married to a woman, but had sex with male prostitutes - this means he was a closeted gay/homosexual.
*Jerry Sandusky had sex with boys and young men, but he was "straight" because he was married to a woman".
Last edited:
jesus christ, who cares?
The point is that the worldview of many of these groups enables pedophiles or individuals who promote some perverse variety of sexual libertinism. Transgender/transsexual movements rooted in these ideologies are particularly dangerous, since it potentially involves irreversible genital removal, or taking drugs to alter one's body chemistry.
Groups like "incels" which are rooted in the same far-left ideology have also been birthed by the dangerous worldviews of these these movements:
(e.x. "Not being able to get laid because you're a creep" is now being touted as a "protected sexual minority status/identity" alongside homosexuality"; "access to sex" is being touted as a "civil rights movement" or "basic human right/need" on par with food or water, which one is "entitled to" simply because they exist, regardless of notions like "consent".
I've run into individuals who identified as "gay", "bi", or something else arguing laws against molesting children are just "social construct" invented for sexual repression; infamous authors such as the Marquis de Sade also touted similar views in regards to pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, and so on - essentially arguing that man's nature was "no different than that of any other beast or animal", and therefore imposing any notion of modesty or sexual restraint on people - even fathers who wanted to rape and murder their daughters, people who wanted to molest children and animals - was nothing more than "sexual repression or "control" over people.
It wouldn't shock me if a good percentage of pro-pedophilia groups, incel groups (a la Nathan Larson), and others, were directly inspired by de Sade and related authors. (There are LGBT-affiliated groups which even reference de Sade as though he were some type of inspiration or role model):
Marquis (magazine)
Marquis is a fetish magazine owned, operated, published and primarily photographed by Peter W. Czernich. Based in Germany, Marquis covers a wide array of topics related to the worldwide fetish subculture. The magazine's name is a reference to the Marquis de Sade. Czernich's original publishing...lgbt.wikia.org
No, we're talking specifically about views that gender is an oppressive "social construct" invented by a conspiracy theory sans any biological factors; or that institutions such as the family or views against pedophilia, zoophilia, etc are "sexual repression".
The point is that gender roles weren't invented as part of some "conspiracy theory", they arose - for good or bad - from various factors including biological ones.
Biology plays a role in the predominance of males who perform a "warrior" role (this is true in the animal kingdom as well, such as in ant colonies or lion packs, where the males primarily fill the role of fighting or defending the colony or pack from attackers).
In practice, if women are capable of fulfilling the roles, then historically they have been allowed to in may instances (even in Medieval Europe, Joan of Arc was a military leader, though this was a very rare exception).
I'm not aware of any era or historical period where women didn't potentially perform some "work" or another. If anything, in the 19th-20th women of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to work in menial jobs because they had to to support their family.
Unless a family was middle-upper middle class, it would be unusual for a husband to able to afford to support an entire family on a single income, and for a woman to do no work at all. (Even today, the same would be true in a lot of cases, regardless of which partner was doing most of the income-earning).
19th and early 20th century | Striking Women
Most [no-lexicon]working class[/no-lexicon] women in Victorian England had no choice but to undertake paid work in order to help support their families. Women worked in factories, in domestic service, in family businesses and carried out [no-lexicon]home-based work[/no-lexicon] such as finishing...www.striking-women.org
Most working class women in Victorian England had no choice but to work in order to help support their families. They worked either in factories, or in domestic service for richer households or in family businesses. Many women also carried out home-based work such as finishing garments and shoes for factories, laundry, or preparation of snacks to sell in the market or streets. This was in addition to their unpaid work at home which included cooking, cleaning, child care and often keeping small animals and growing vegetables and fruit to help feed their families.
Overall, circumstances such as family, economics, and practical realities have had more of a direct influence on these things than any specific "era". (Whether ancient Greece or the Victorian era, women such as Sappho of Lesbos, or Marie Curie had access to better "career" and self-actualization options than women of lesser means today would - obviously winning the "family/parent" lottery had a large factor in it, something which still obviously applies, at least as much as a woman whose parents were both wealthy businesspeople would have a better foundation to start with than a woman who's parents both worked menial jobs).
Other than gender roles which are cemented into law, such as laws which expect parents to provide for their children, "roles" are not and have never been absolute, and are ultimately just private contracts or agreements which couples negotiate with each other, adapting to the present circumstances (such as widowed fathers staying at home with children).
I'm not sure what you mean by "living under one roof" - if anything this was (and still is) an economic luxury for people with the financial means or desire to own a home - people with less financial assets both in the 20th century and today would be more likely to take assistance from relatives, rent an apartment, or so forth.
(This also varies by region - in New York city, for example, only about 33% of people own a home, and only 36% own cars).
Monogamy is primarily a cultural or rational notion, rather than "biological" - I don't know of anyone who makes this argument, not to mention that polygamy has existed and still exists in some countries (it's obvious that men or women's biological urges can influence them to cheat or have "casual sex").
I'm not aware of any 1st world country in which monogamy is not seen as a positive ideal (while polygamy is primarily associated with undeveloped or 3rd world living conditions).
Modesty as a social concept goes beyond pure survivalism - I'm aware that specific standards of modesty vary from culture to culture, or era to era, however some cross-cultural notion of modesty is universal.
The claim of "socialization" also isn't absolute - since obviously it doesn't explain how new constructs were invented to begin with.
The authors of new "constructs" were not "socialized", but came up with them on the basis of various logical or rational arguments.
Saying otherwise would be like saying that "people who play Nintendo games only do so because their parents used to play NES" - obviously that's not the case as far as the invention of home-video game consoles like the NES, and their popularization with people to begin with.
Even in the US, or in theories on the arts, nudity is not automatically "pornography/obscenity". (You're more than welcome to read US Common Law definitions on the subject).
I never said "restraint" was biological - if anything, restraint is a rational notion; restraint is the reason that people of higher socio-economic status have fewer children than people of lower status, and why smarter people don't have 5 kids with 5 different baby mommies / daddies on welfare by age 16 - so most who have any amount of life ambition beyond being a baby-making factory would agree it's a good thing.
If by "gay", you mean wants to have sex with other men, then no.
The point is, "gay" is a social construct by your own arguments - actual law on issues like "same-sex marriage" don't care what a person "identifies" as - they just acknowledge unions between 2 people of the same sex.
There are plenty of examples of people engaging in same-sex activity, but not identifying as "gay", "homosexual", or anything else, for example:
*A convict who would punch you out if you called him "gay" will still have sex with other men in prison.
*In ancient Rome, it was only considered "gay" if you were the one being penetrated, rather than doing the penetration.
In addition, some people will only use the term "gay" if they think it suits their argument, for example:
*Some people will argue that "Ted Haggart was married to a woman, but had sex with male prostitutes - this means he was a closeted gay/homosexual.
*Jerry Sandusky had sex with boys and young men, but he was "straight" because he was married to a woman".
Overly Serious
kiwifarms.net
75 pages. I'm not going to read them all but I would like to say this thread should be called "LGB discussion". I hate the way T has grafted itself onto what was formerly a movement to protect the rights of people based on sexual orientation, not sexual fetish. One of these letters is not like the others.
can we ban trannies from the thread
ugly trannos
ugly trannos
There's neuroscience that backs the existence of gender dysphoria. Troons are not trannies and shouldn't be indulged as such.
If we ban every ugly person from this thread, the only person allowed to post in it would be @Rich Evans Apologist
Well, Rich Evans is beautiful, but I'm just an uggo. And neither of us are gay, barring that I'm gay for Rich Evans.
However, I do feel a certain camaraderie with chubby-chasing lesbians. Blasé socjus shit stole fat chicks away from me by making them into insufferable, boring cunts. It stole fat chicks away from the lesbos by making them get the chop and grow pube-beards alongside the insufferable, miserable cunt thing.
It's weird to think that the trope of fat girls being sunny and sweet is dead now. Their weight used to give them a kind of mental toughness, but now they sit in an uneasy, angry state of denial.
Aidan
kiwifarms.net
The whole "technically" thing is part of the problem with the T in LGBT. It's really just a cop out to justify anything tranny related to make it seem normal and natural and is itself based on a shaky foundation.
Dr. John Money is probably the single biggest name involved in all of that and he was a disgusting man who basically wrote the book on abusing children (particularly boys) into being the opposite of what they were.
Last edited:
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
We need to keep an eye to see if they're going to try to add a "P" to the end of that (for pedophiles).
I'm not sure what you're talking about, because if you'd studied Money's research, he was trying to prove that there was no neuroscientific basis for gender identity: in other words, if you took a boy from birth and raised them totally socially as a girl or vice versa without anyone ever saying otherwise, then they'd identify as such without any mental duress. The abject failure of his work, no matter what fucked extremes he went to to make it work, shows that there is a neurological basis for gender identity.
I agree that transgender people should have their own movement separate from gay rights, because their issues are fundamentally different in my eyes. But I don't think they need to get out because there's some horrible corrosive evil surrounding gender dysphoria- it's just that being trans is currently the way to cheat to the top of the righteousness pile, and the people who want to be there are using the identity as a shield. In a prior era, these people would be conspicuously devoted to Christianity, or whatever else would allow them to have an aura of sanctimonious untouchability. That is the attitude that should be called out- trying to turn it into "all trannies are morally evil and wrong" isn't productive.
Your logic is more gymnastic and flexible than the hips of my favorite femboy power bottom. You moan pretty loud too.
Aidan
kiwifarms.net
His work is a large part of the foundation of "gender is a social construct" and tied into tranny mental gymnastics quite often, while the damages it did and his own perversions are conveniently ignored.
You basically hit the nail on the head regarding issues people have with trannies and the same goes for gays as well, and it's not about human rights or anything, it's about the special privileges many people perceive that go with being very outwardly transgender and the demands they make that require everyone conform to whatever they think being transgender is about.
No matter what happens, trannies will never be happy because very few will ever be perceived as what they want to be, which is often a pretty woman. So instead they want the law to enforce their own delusions and force you to pretend to perceive them as such and that is what people hate about them, in my experience.
Frankly, I think it's a problem that so many people are told they're transgender and to just "try" being the other gender and then there's some screwed up positive reinforcement that goes with it so all the weirdos troon out because it's progressive and their progressive friends will never say anything bad about being transgender, ultimately fucking up weak-willed people's lives which is almost exclusively loser guys.
Tranny issues are not gay issues and no one likes them.
Earlier in the afternoon I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who identifies as "queer". Personally, it didn't (and still doesn't) sit well with me. Doesn't "queer" technically mean the same thing as just being "gay"? Why can't you just call yourself gay (since the word "queer" still is considered a slur)?
She told me (and I'm paraphrasing here) it basically falls under the umbrella under liking someone of the same gender or being transgender AKA needless words when we already have stuff for that. And compared that to why book genres like fantasy has so many sub-genres (I legit rolled my eyes at that. IDK why she made that distinction when these are two different things we're talking here but whatever)
I guess the question I want to ask here is: why are there so many labels for something basic as sexual orientation? To me, there's really just three: gay, lesbo, and bisexual. Why make more?
She told me (and I'm paraphrasing here) it basically falls under the umbrella under liking someone of the same gender or being transgender AKA needless words when we already have stuff for that. And compared that to why book genres like fantasy has so many sub-genres (I legit rolled my eyes at that. IDK why she made that distinction when these are two different things we're talking here but whatever)
I guess the question I want to ask here is: why are there so many labels for something basic as sexual orientation? To me, there's really just three: gay, lesbo, and bisexual. Why make more?
Those labels are too common nowadays so calling yourself gay hardly makes you stand out anymore.
Makes sense. If that wasn't the case, shit like pansexuality wouldn't exist either. Who you fuck shouldn't matter but I guess some people can't get past that.
I've always just thought of it in terms of genital preference. You like that of the opposite sex? Straight. You're into people with the same equipment you've got? Gay. You're down for whatever? Bi.
Anything beyond that is needless nuance. Some people argue that distinctions need to be made for stuff like a straight man willing to date a transwoman but I'd argue that you're just a bi man with a preference for femininity.
Being gay or bi isn't special enough anymore. All the snowflakes have to be unique so that's why there's 50 words that all basically mean the same thing.
Similar threads
How would you describe your ability to think?
