Well this explains a lot. Apparently we're all Bi whether we know our or not....

[Wrybread]

So I saw this thread on Twitter.

This may explain why certain sjw think it's no big deal if people other than biological women identify as lesbians....because they don't think any people really are only straight/lesbian/gay. Apparently we're all Bi but in denial

Convenient personal narrative there. That especially enables men who wish to shag lesbians.

Lesbian erasure.

nocool, I thought that too ☹️

The issue is kind of two fold.

The one is the whole 'words are meanie old boundaries that stop people embracing their cosplay/avatar inner self, and anyone should be able to embrace any chosen labels to create their ideal inner identity regardless of material reality. And this inner identity should be accepted over and above reality. And this absolutely doesn't damage the original group whose labels you're appropriating to validate your authentic self/best life/other wankery'

#fuckthatshit

On this grounds I was called homophobic (as a lesbian) for insisting that people who sexually prefer sex with men shouldn't use the word 'lesbian' as it's plain inaccurate.

The other is that while if you insist on calling yourself a vegan, publicly social mediaeing everywhere that you're a vegan, making it a huge thing in people's faces, but equally publicly knocking back steak and lamb chops, well people are going to think you're a bit odd and tell you so if you push it in their faces. Equally, no law against embracing any labels you wish around your sexuality regardless of actual fact if you don't mind that many will find you a bit strange. All live and let live.

But when you start trying to enforce women to believe they should give men sex against their will, not expect to enjoy it or want it but dutifully learn to cope with doing it as some kind of bizarre pseudo religious belief that this sacrifice in some way makes you a better person (no other reward specified) which is based around a belief in men's entitlement to enjoy sex and have choices and in women's duty to not expect enjoyment or choice but to exist to meet men's needs- you have a very major problem between your ears. And you're someone that anyone emotionally healthy will get the fuck away from as fast as possible.

That's the thing isn't it? The way it's all presented as if, if you don't agree you're either a bigot or a prude....coercive really.

I find it odd that people who think the world revolves around how stunning and brave they are find it so difficult to find partners that they need to resort to coercion and rewriting the dictionary.

It couldn't be that self-absorbed me me me types aren't appealing to others as romantic and sexual partners?

Why aren't all the stunning and brave lesbians who want female penis in the bedroom happily in lesbian relationships with other female penis havers? After all biology doesn't matter.

This isn't really a new idea is it? The idea that most people fall to one end of a spectrum but occasionally might have sexual attraction to someone of the non-prefered sex is pretty old, I remember seeing some kind of line from 1 to 10 in an old psych book in the 80s and it wasn't new then. IIRC it's also been shown that women are more likely than men to fall closer to the middle.

That's a little theoretical of course but I know a lot of women at least who seem to feel it is true. And we do know, because we can see it, that in setting where people's normal preferred sex is absent (prisons, single sex schools, etc) or in cultures with very different expectations, people behave differently.

So I am not really surprised to hear someone say something like this tweet, it's a twisted version of what is likely true, which is that sexual behaviour and feelings are to some extent affected by the environment and people's experiences. It's been adopted without really thinking about it though, there is no evidence that most people are truly innately bi-sexual and it wouldn't make a lot of sense in terms of procreation, and there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that they aren't naturally polyamorous, given that almost all societies (we are social animals) have ways of controlling sexual activity.

I can see why someone might say it, and perhaps it's so, but I know that I don't feel any urge to touch someone else's vulva. Much like I know that on a man, I find shoulders attractive, whereas some people go for legs or forearms.

I suspect, that like many things, it's going to be a bit of both. I think that like taste in food, if you grow up in a place that eats cheese, you're more likely to eat cheese, but also that some people in that cheese-eating place still won't like cheese, and some people will absolutely adore it, and that whilst you might be socially pushed into gaining an appreciation of cheese, the fact of the matter is that you just might not like it and making you eat it isn't going to change that.

Nice analogy....but now I want cheese! 🧀

I genuinely thought I'd read arguments that bi is deprecated because it's, well, bi and that the appropriate term (for some groups) is that bi people are expected to be pan to signal willingness to accept > 2 genders?

It should be said that I don't understand this topic beyond what I read and this is probably apparent from my explanation. And is supposed to explain why I opted out of using the term bisexual.

I do feel for those who are bisexual. I know people (male and female) who've been told they're greedy, or not taken seriously, or had partners and potential partners who just ignored that part of their sexuality that they didn't share, as if it didn't exist.

And those who get told they're lucky that they can pretend to be straight etc.

I'm not sure whether the Kinsey scale can be trusted or not. Or the numbers on who is where on the scale. But I know that I'm not bisexual. Not because of societal norms, simply because I only find one sex attractive.

I'm not sure that societal norms can be used as a reason for those who are same sex attracted either!

It appears to be arguing that consent is merely a social construct, and if we hadn't been socially conditioned, we'd all be polyamorous, which I think is a euphemism for "prepared to let any perve who fancies it shag us while we lie back and think of England."

Yet another piece of rape apologism from the Woke.

It really is a men's sexual rights movement rapist's charter.

It would suit some people to argue consent is a social construct.

It must be terrible realising that nobody wants to date you or sleep with you due to such horrible self-obsessed attitudes that act as a big red warning flag, leaving you feeling that eroding the definition of consent is your only option for having a shag.

I was thinking of you, Fermats + when I read DrEM's thread about consent (the whole is well worth reading):

In general, we see in rape cases men claim to be confused around consent, like penetrating a woman when she doesn't want sex is just bad sexual manners, yet as soon as age of consent debates arise they become bloody experts and can determine the 'nuance' between kids & teens.

A new trend in the rough sex defence to murder positions men as slaves to consent - they had to because she was asking for it...

We need to culturally reconceptualise sex so it is not constructed as something a woman just allows, just agrees to (consent), but is thought of as something a woman actively participates in and enjoys.

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1149580183336153088

If this notion that none of us is allowed to refuse another's advances/demands for fear of being thought to be a bigot of some sort rather than an autonomous adult who chooses to acknowledge one's own preferences and boundaries - where exactly is this supposed to end?

This tangent is also brought to you by some of the most recent testimony in the JY thread.

Funny, I think seeing that prefix of

'I think' or 'I believe'

@LolaSmiles
There is a never ending stream of transwomen "lesbians" - if any of these lesbians/bi's who claim to like penises put their money where their mouths are, they would be quids in when it came to finding a partner, literally hundreds of them.

Strangely enough I think most are all mouth and are just talking progressive shit (presumably so people won't call them terfs and hate them) yet secretly hope it will be other lesbians who do the deed.

It is often claimed that it is only a tiny minority of lesbians who decline transwomen but given the bitching and whining from certain quarters, that simply cannot be true.
It is disgusting homophobic gaslighting

I agree aspley

There's a dating pool of people who wouldn't mind sleeping with transpeople with their original biological genitals (just like there is a heterosexual dating pool, a lesbian pool, a gay pool). Why do some insist on thinking they have the right to coerce people who aren't interested into sexual acts they don't want?

The group of TRA transwomen who push this agenda never say heterosexual men should sleep with them (I'm guessing because as transwomen with male genitals they are not interested in homosexual sex acts), but when it comes to women having a sexual orientation based on sex is having a genital fetish and literal violence. It's mental gymnastics.

They do often claim that only a handful of ‘terf-y’ lesbians object to penis, well, in that case, since they’ve allegedly got the vast majority of lesbians on their side why not stick to dating them and leave the others alone? Hmm it couldn’t be that the trans-accepting lesbians aren’t quite as numerous and gagging to fuck them as they’d have us believe could it?

Fundamentally it is a waste of everyones time. Why hang around lesbians when quite simply they do not want you? I wouldn't dream of pestering straight women for sex as I know they are not attracted to me. What gives these people the arrogance that somehow they can push in where they are not wanted?

There are Bi/pan/straight women who are far more likely to be receptive of them.

Most people are attracted to the opposite sex.

Except that’s not quite true.

Most people are attracted to a very small subset of the opposite sex.

The ‘everyone is bi’ theory holds that because someone is attracted to the opposite sex they must have some attraction for members of the same sex because there’s some overlap in gender expression.

But it’s not true.

A straight woman’s attraction to men doesn’t shade into women because they find most men unattractive. They don’t get close to fancying women.

Same with men, only more so. If they aren’t attracted to all women most aren’t going to be attracted to any men.

And the same goes for gay men and lesbians. They are attracted to a relatively small number of members of the same sex. It’s not an attraction to that entire sex, and it doesn’t extend to members of the opposite sex who might present as members of the same sex.

Gay men do not fancy butch lesbians. Lesbians are not, as a rule, attracted to effeminate men.

Goose
Are you thinking of the Kinsey scale? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

It is often claimed that it is only a tiny minority of lesbians who decline transwomen but given the bitching and whining from certain quarters, that simply cannot be true.

It's not. By pro trans figures, only 9% of lesbians don't decline MTFs as partners.

As with so much of the trans/MRA/AWA/SJW ideologies and rhetoric, it conflates separate issues to confuse people. It's like saying to someone who likes cheese and finds jeans uncomfortable, "You'll like these jeans because I've put a piece of cheese in the pocket."

I was interested to read recently that most men with a transgender identity have comorbid personality disorders, the most common being NPD.

This makes sense when you consider the degree of shameless egotism required to demand that people have sex with you even though you know they're not sexually attracted to you.

The contrast between this and the behaviour of the old school transsexuals is striking.

By pro trans figures, only 9% of lesbians don't decline MTFs as partners.

Then you think they'd be able to leave that 9% in peace and be happy with the 91% apparently gladly queuing up.