Pride Month Masterthread

[Le Chat Nécro]

Speaking of how far we've come, and how far we have yet to go, let's talk a little about first Pride.

This year will be the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. And I think with all the glitter and rainbows and parades it's easy to forget that the first Pride was in fact *a riot*. It wasn't pretty or fabulous. Police raided the Stonewall Inn as they did nearly once a month, as it was a well known gay hang out, breaking up and arresting the revelers inside. But this time, instead of going quietly to their jail cells for crimes no more severe than wearing a dress while having a penis, they fought back. First coins were thrown (a nod to the huge payoffs the cops would get from gay bars as protection money from their morality raids), then bottles, then rocks. Billy clubs were drawn. People were liberated from paddy wagons. Riot control was called in. Instead of fleeing, rioters broke formation, ran around the block, and came back up behind the line of police and enforcers. At one point a chorus line of drag queens came in singing.

‘We are the Stonewall girls
We wear our hair in curls
We wear no underwear
We show our pubic hair…
We wear our dungarees
Above our nelly knees!’

It was a delicious mockery of the whole violent affair. The next night, the same thing went down. And the night after that. For five days they protested, handing out leaflets about police brutality and mafia profiteering against gays and queers. People like Marsha P Johnson, Silvia Rivera, Storme DeLarverie were there throwing the first march that would turn into the Gay Rights Movement as we think of it today.

A year later, Brenda Howard organized the 1 year anniversary rally to commemorate the riots which would become the annual Pride March we know today. But it didn't start out being about pride. It was about fighting for their rights to exist as themselves without fear or oppression. It was a violent affair that sparked more work and more demonstrations to get us where we are today.

I've been posting a lot straight from Tumblr, so I'll simply paraphrase things this time around
"you cannot settle into the mentality that someone fought so that you wouldn’t have to"
The people that night fifty years ago fought hard, really really hard, to make the progress they did. And we have come so far. But we're not quite there yet. It's important to know our history, and reflect on our future. What we can do to build on the legacy of Stonewall and the brave people who decided that it was time for change.

Good links to learn more:
Brenda Howard Memorial website: www.nyabn.org: Brenda Howard 1946-2005
A Free Essay on Why Stonewall became *the* Event that everyone remembers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~elarmstr/publications/Movements and Memory Armstrong and Crage.pdf
6 Major Moments in LGBT History other than Stonewall: www.them.us: 6 Major Moments in Queer History BEYOND the Stonewall Riots

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

And now for something completely different:
sosuperawesome.com: Purrr-ride! Iron-on Patches Giraffe Cos on Etsy ... |
https://did%3D2aed4a8f996ef41b067ec6fd2f55c8af10d882ff%3Bid%3D184402950004%3Bkey%3D-88_Oo_ACEz_XiXspwMD-w%3Bname%3Drose-sapphic https://did%3D47b5cd182839658c0318dbe1007e8b0c0076a21f%3Bid%3D180895126471%3Bkey%3DJBIYpnfxFxCrFeyGMiUjjQ%3Bname%3Dprideknights

 

[quoting_mungo]

The problem is the motivation for the straight pride stuff has always come from the worst possible place. It's the same shit as "all lives matter"; it exists as a counter-movement against social change; while trying to create a false equivalence in order to gain access to the victim card. It started from a place of Homophobia, and should be seen for what it is.

And that makes the motivation shitty, no contest there. I see conceptual viability as separate, and am not as confident as you seem to be that the motivation by nature has to be toxic. (As in, I will readily recognize that it takes very little rounding to arrive at 100% of people who would be participating in a straight pride event in our current social climate would be acting in bad faith. But I also believe the potential exists for something more positive to arise at some point. I'd love for all sexuality to come from a point of self-discovery rather than a point of assuming the default.)

No, no, no. I'm not saying that all straight people are bad. I explicitly said that in my post. But, I'm ragging on the ones who feel "threatened" by Pride Month; like they have to make noise, or else straight people will somehow disappear from the world.

It's more of a general statement. It's sadly more common than it ought to be for hostility against straight people to creep out in queer spaces, and sometimes it almost seems as though people forget that straight people no more choose their sexuality than we choose ours.

As a fellow bi person in a straight passing relationship.. I feel ya.
There can be a lot of nasty gatekeeping in the community and it can affect a lot of people. I understand the instinct to not want het-passing people at your big gay parade. It does send a mixed message if you don't look to close at it. But if you do look close at it, you're cutting off a lot of people who deserve to be there as much as anyone else. Bi's and Pan's in straight passing relationships, same gender relationships where one person is trans and doesn't "pass" sufficiently, genderqueer people who are presenting "incorrectly" for the event (big quotes on that one), aces hanging out with different gender friends... This need for people to look "gay enough" for pride is setting a really awful bar that we should not be putting on each other. Like... society comes with enough pressures for gay people. We shouldn't be doing this to each other.

Boyfriend and I actually went to a local Pride parade the other week, and he remarked that it felt weird to him to be there with a girlfriend; both he and my husband lean gay, so he's always been with male partners before.

The other important group cut out by gatekeeping is closeted people. If you have to "present queer" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in order to be welcome, where does that put the people who call themselves "allies" because they're not yet ready to come out? (My understanding is that this meaning of "ally" is a factor in why Straight-Gay-Alliance is SGA instead of the school LGBTQ+ club or whatever.) Or, say, the straight partners of queer individuals? Should we forbid those queer individuals from bringing their partner to an event that is meaningful to them?

The only group I personally felt kinda grossed out by seeing at Pride was political parties very obviously hunting for votes for the EU parliament elections the same weekend. Ideally, the only commercial/political interests participating would be those that are supportive year round, but the absolute least they can do is to put the focus of their damn booth on their QUILTBAG policies, not on getting EU parliament seats. Partly this was probably a matter of bad timing, but partly it shines a light on how much of a PR lightshow Pride is to some organizations.

But Pride was in direct response to Shame. Lots of (awful) people like to paint Pride as somehow saying that being gay is better than being straight or that non gays should be ashamed, but that's not it. It's a middle finger to a society that told gay people that they should be the ones ashamed, a society that mistreated and harmed gay people for being "less than" and "abominations". Big P Pride is about affirming that "no, I will not be ashamed of who I am because you say who I love is wrong. In fact, I'm going to go so far in the other direction there's going to be a damned parade".

I absolutely agree with this interpretation of the name Pride and if you've got any kind of corroborating sources handy that this was the origin of the choice of name for the event/movement I'd be tickled pink to see them, because I've searched and come up with little. Sadly, I think gatekeeping to some degree feeds the "the queers think they're better than us" rhetoric; "you can't come to my party" isn't exactly something you tend to say to people you think highly of in everyday life. But then I also have a major chip on my shoulder where gatekeeping is concerned, and I'll readily own that.

 

[FluffyShutterbug]

And that makes the motivation shitty, no contest there. I see conceptual viability as separate, and am not as confident as you seem to be that the motivation by nature has to be toxic. (As in, I will readily recognize that it takes very little rounding to arrive at 100% of people who would be participating in a straight pride event in our current social climate would be acting in bad faith. But I also believe the potential exists for something more positive to arise at some point. I'd love for all sexuality to come from a point of self-discovery rather than a point of assuming the default.)


It's more of a general statement. It's sadly more common than it ought to be for hostility against straight people to creep out in queer spaces, and sometimes it almost seems as though people forget that straight people no more choose their sexuality than we choose ours.


Boyfriend and I actually went to a local Pride parade the other week, and he remarked that it felt weird to him to be there with a girlfriend; both he and my husband lean gay, so he's always been with male partners before.

The other important group cut out by gatekeeping is closeted people. If you have to "present queer" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in order to be welcome, where does that put the people who call themselves "allies" because they're not yet ready to come out? (My understanding is that this meaning of "ally" is a factor in why Straight-Gay-Alliance is SGA instead of the school LGBTQ+ club or whatever.) Or, say, the straight partners of queer individuals? Should we forbid those queer individuals from bringing their partner to an event that is meaningful to them?

The only group I personally felt kinda grossed out by seeing at Pride was political parties very obviously hunting for votes for the EU parliament elections the same weekend. Ideally, the only commercial/political interests participating would be those that are supportive year round, but the absolute least they can do is to put the focus of their damn booth on their QUILTBAG policies, not on getting EU parliament seats. Partly this was probably a matter of bad timing, but partly it shines a light on how much of a PR lightshow Pride is to some organizations.


I absolutely agree with this interpretation of the name Pride and if you've got any kind of corroborating sources handy that this was the origin of the choice of name for the event/movement I'd be tickled pink to see them, because I've searched and come up with little. Sadly, I think gatekeeping to some degree feeds the "the queers think they're better than us" rhetoric; "you can't come to my party" isn't exactly something you tend to say to people you think highly of in everyday life. But then I also have a major chip on my shoulder where gatekeeping is concerned, and I'll readily own that.

Of course I know that sexuality isn't a choice. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that about myself and my group while thinking, even subconsciously, that it wasn't true for them. My gripe lies in the privilege that straight people enjoy, especially of Caucasian men that are straight. You know what privilege means in the context that I'm using, right? That's where my animosity lies. That's all.

 

[Troj]

Actually, I have a question!

Could someone explain demiromanticism to me, and why it falls under the LGBTQ umbrella?

Offhand, I don't see it as a big to-do that somebody would only feel sexual attraction towards people they feel comfortable with, and my assumption is that such an attractional style is much better-understood and widely-accepted than the opposite style (i.e., nymphomania).

I've hesitated to ask about this, because I didn't want to be perceived as/accused of gatekeeping or being exclusionary, but I am curious, because I genuinely don't get it. I realize my confusion may stem from my assumption that demiromanticism is more common than it might actually be in reality. My attempts to research this on my own resulted in the same definitions and descriptions popping up again and again, without answering my questions here.

 

[MCtheBeardie]

Actually, I have a question!

Could someone explain demiromanticism to me, and why it falls under the LGBTQ umbrella?

Offhand, I don't see it as a big to-do that somebody would only feel sexual attraction towards people they feel comfortable with, and my assumption is that such an attractional style is much better-understood and widely-accepted than the opposite style (i.e., nymphomania).

I've hesitated to ask about this, because I didn't want to be perceived as/accused of gatekeeping or being exclusionary, but I am curious, because I genuinely don't get it. I realize my confusion may stem from my assumption that demiromanticism is more common than it might actually be in reality. My attempts to research this on my own resulted in the same definitions and descriptions popping up again and again, without answering my questions here.

That’s actually a good question! I can understand Demisexuality, as sexuality is inherently different from romanticism in my opinion, but I don’t get people who identify as Demiromantic. Because, that’s how romance works- you don’t fall in love with someone romantically at a glance, in my view. On the other hand, Demisexuality makes sense, because things like one night stands and friends with benefits exist. I identify as Demisexual because I don’t like pornographic content at all or really do much to myself, and I’d like to have a romantic relationship before I go and do the deed with them, if at all. That’s reasonable, because it can be considered a part of the Asexual spectrum.

I don’t understand Demiromanticism either, tbh.

 

[Bink]

I'm not big into being the loud and proud type, but I'm also not content to feel like I'm in the shadows or being avoidant about who I am... using this month to motivate me to conquer those fears and obstacles.. not working out the best so far...

Came out to my dad the other day.. he proceeded to convey his disbelief by saying that I should get a psych eval... and that maybe I'm just confused and desperate; as if that being gay/bi is the easier alternative than trying to meet a woman..

Like.. what the actual fuck...

 

[Infrarednexus]

I discovered recently that I am actually demisexual and not completely homosexual like I thought. Glad to know there are others like me out there who understand.

 

[KimberVaile]

I'm not big into being the loud and proud type, but I'm also not content to feel like I'm in the shadows or being avoidant about who I am... using this month to motivate me to conquer those fears and obstacles.. not working out the best so far...

Came out to my dad the other day.. he proceeded to convey his disbelief by saying that I should get a psych eval... and that maybe I'm just confused and desperate; as if that being gay/bi is the easier alternative than trying to meet a woman..

Like.. what the actual fuck...

I'm sorry about that Bink. For my part, I've always felt part of pride month is finding communion with your fellow gays, who've had similarly suffered or struggled under narrow minded societal norms. Sometimes we end up finding pushback from the people closest to us. Awful thing, but I hope it might help some to know others have struggled in much the same way, and that it gets better in time.

Sorry if, that wasn't all too helpful. I'm not the best motivational speaker, but I try.

 

[Cendrag Roseheart]

I'm just BI, nothing special..

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

I absolutely agree with this interpretation of the name Pride and if you've got any kind of corroborating sources handy that this was the origin of the choice of name for the event/movement I'd be tickled pink to see them, because I've searched and come up with little. Sadly, I think gatekeeping to some degree feeds the "the queers think they're better than us" rhetoric; "you can't come to my party" isn't exactly something you tend to say to people you think highly of in everyday life. But then I also have a major chip on my shoulder where gatekeeping is concerned, and I'll readily own that.

I don't. It's my personal interpretation mostly. This is the best I've been able to come across so far which basically sums it up as "We don't know, no one wrote this shit down." www.bustle.com: This Is Why It's Called Pride
Though another bustle article on pride does include this quote from Schoonmaker, one of the "founders of pride" along with Brenda Howard and Robert Martin.
"People did not have power then; even now, we only have some, but anyone can have pride in themselves, and that would make them happier as people, and produce the movement likely to produce change."

I've hesitated to ask about this, because I didn't want to be perceived as/accused of gatekeeping or being exclusionary, but I am curious, because I genuinely don't get it. I realize my confusion may stem from my assumption that demiromanticism is more common than it might actually be in reality. My attempts to research this on my own resulted in the same definitions and descriptions popping up again and again, without answering my questions here.

Honest questions are always welcome. Some concepts and identities are legitimately hard to grasp if you're a person who hasn't experienced it (explaining asexuality to my mother was like teaching physics to a toddler, she just did not get it). I am not demiromanitc myself, so grain of salt here, but hopefully this might help clear things up for you and @MCtheBeardie
From what I can gather, to understand demiromanticism you need to break up romantic attraction into to parts- primary attraction (think like a crush) and secondary attraction (a deeper, more commonly thought of attraction). People who are not demiro can develop a romantic crush on someone before knowing them that well or having much of connection. I think of it like my middle school days when even a small smile from the new kid in class would send my heart into a flutter despite us never having spoken 3 words to each other. But no, we would certainly get married and live happily ever after cause ~Love~. Demiromantics, on the other hand, won't (or are unlikely) to crush before forming more of a bond and relationship with someone.

I'm not big into being the loud and proud type, but I'm also not content to feel like I'm in the shadows or being avoidant about who I am... using this month to motivate me to conquer those fears and obstacles.. not working out the best so far...

Came out to my dad the other day.. he proceeded to convey his disbelief by saying that I should get a psych eval... and that maybe I'm just confused and desperate; as if that being gay/bi is the easier alternative than trying to meet a woman..

Like.. what the actual fuck...

I'm really sorry that happened. It's a really unfortunate part of life that no matter how much we love ourselves, there will always be someone who doesn't, or who just can't understand. Do what you need to do to feel proud of yourself, it doesn't have to be a bright and shining parade, and keep yourself safe. I hope your dad will come around, but at the very least know that there are a whole bunch of people in the world who already understand and who will love the shit out of you as you are.

I'm just BI, nothing special..

Bi is great.

 

[Cendrag Roseheart]

How so?

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

How so?

Well, as a bi person, I think it's just the best.
But it's you, loving who you want to love in a world that doesn't always recognize that as valid. And bi's can get a lot of flack from inside the community as well as from the straights (see the gatekeeping conversation me and mungo were having above).
To be fair, all letters on the acronym are great. But bi is my favorite for clearly biased reasons.

 

[MCtheBeardie]

Honest questions are always welcome. Some concepts and identities are legitimately hard to grasp if you're a person who hasn't experienced it (explaining asexuality to my mother was like teaching physics to a toddler, she just did not get it). I am not demiromanitc myself, so grain of salt here, but hopefully this might help clear things up for you and @MCtheBeardie
From what I can gather, to understand demiromanticism you need to break up romantic attraction into to parts- primary attraction (think like a crush) and secondary attraction (a deeper, more commonly thought of attraction). People who are not demiro can develop a romantic crush on someone before knowing them that well or having much of connection. I think of it like my middle school days when even a small smile from the new kid in class would send my heart into a flutter despite us never having spoken 3 words to each other. But no, we would certainly get married and live happily ever after cause ~Love~. Demiromantics, on the other hand, won't (or are unlikely) to crush before forming more of a bond and relationship with someone.

In that respect, I suppose that makes sense! I don't really experience sexual attraction outside of very specific conditions, but that doesn't mean I'm not hopelessly romantic. I wouldn't know what being Demiromantic is like, so thank you for clarifying!

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

In that respect, I suppose that makes sense! I don't really experience sexual attraction outside of very specific conditions, but that doesn't mean I'm not hopelessly romantic. I wouldn't know what being Demiromantic is like, so thank you for clarifying!

Oh course, people who are actually demiromantic would probably be able to explain it better. But glad I could help.

 

[Fallowfox]

@Le Chat Nécro @Troj Personally I've found things like 'polyamory' and 'demiromantic' being considered under the lgbt umbrella a little difficult- especially if these exist in the context of straight people staking a claim in lgbt.

I've been very reticent to voice that though, because I know it comes at the risk of being accused of being a 'gate keeper', and it's not like I want to put people off of supporting the lgbt community.

 

[KimberVaile]

@Le Chat Nécro @Troj Personally I've found things like 'polyamory' and 'demiromantic' being considered under the lgbt umbrella a little difficult- especially if these exist in the context of straight people staking a claim in lgbt.

I've been very reticent to voice that though, because I know it comes at the risk of being accused of being a 'gate keeper', and it's not like I want to put people off of supporting the lgbt community.

I agree. There have been some straight people that have used the terms to equate their own experiences as the same as gays who have been harassed and harangued their whole life.
Perhaps, more controversially and where we might disagree, some straight people have used the claims of being bi to get into the community while also not facing the same hate or revilement.

I am of course not saying all bis are like this by any means, or that all demiromantics or polys are like this even. Just that, there are some straight people that have used all these terms to push themselves into the community.
Sorry if it seems like I myself am gate keeping, though I do hold some similar sentiments. I just hope I don't seem like I'm being exclusionary by voicing the concerns I have.

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

@Le Chat Nécro @Troj Personally I've found things like 'polyamory' and 'demiromantic' being considered under the lgbt umbrella a little difficult- especially if these exist in the context of straight people staking a claim in lgbt.

I've been very reticent to voice that though, because I know it comes at the risk of being accused of being a 'gate keeper', and it's not like I want to put people off of supporting the lgbt community.

It is a delicate tight rope to walk. Tensions can be super high and no one can ever be certain how people are going to react to something that is meant in good faith (or if it is meant in good faith to begin with).

For polyamory, I do not personally consider it part of the acronym. However, I do think there's a lot of overlap and comoribidity between the two such that it's not odd for poly people to find a home in the community. Every poly person I've met was also queer in some way or another, and some of the people who fought hardest for gay rights have been poly. Brenda Howard, Mother of Pride, was bi, poly, kinky, and a lot more. While I might not consider poly to be queer per-say, I'm not going to shun them from my spaces.

X-romantic identities are a little harder for me. Aromantic feels very lgbt to me, because it is so far from what "normal" people experience. Like it feels very "not straight". Demiromantic.. not so much. An aromantic will not have romantic feels for anyone, same or differently gendered, so it's mutually exclusive with heteromantic. However, someone who is demiromantic can also be heteromantic since the only qualifier is when and how attraction occurs, not to whom. I'm still going to respect it as an identity, but I'm undecided on it's place under the umbrella. But again, I'm not going to shun them, and I feel like someone who is identifying as demiromantic also has a high probability of being queer in some other way. Generic straight folk don't typically feel the need to delve into "tumblr identities", as it were.

Basically.. it's complicated! And it's not a great answer, but it's the one I've got.

 

[Fallowfox]

I agree. There have been some straight people that have used the terms to equate their own experiences as the same as gays who have been harassed and harangued their whole life.
Perhaps, more controversially and where we might disagree, some straight people have used the claims of being bi to get into the community while also not facing the same hate or revilement.

I am of course not saying all bis are like this by any means, or that all demiromantics or polys are like this even. Just that, there are some straight people that have used all these terms to push themselves into the community.
Sorry if it seems like I myself am gate keeping, but I do tend to agree with you to an extent.

I suppose polyamorous people could claim that, just as society has historically not been accepting of same sex relationships, it has also not been accepting to people who want to voluntarily participate in relationships with more than one partner.

This is slightly complicated for the lgbt community, which for a long time has fought to distance itself from the allegation that we are all promiscuous people with multiple partners having sex all the time (I wish), to negotiate.

 

[Le Chat Nécro]

I agree. There have been some straight people that have used the terms to equate their own experiences as the same as gays who have been harassed and harangued their whole life.
Perhaps, more controversially and where we might disagree, some straight people have used the claims of being bi to get into the community while also not facing the same hate or revilement.

I am of course not saying all bis are like this by any means, or that all demiromantics or polys are like this even. Just that, there are some straight people that have used all these terms to push themselves into the community.
Sorry if it seems like I myself am gate keeping, though I do hold some similar sentiments. I just hope I don't seem like I'm being exclusionary by voicing the concerns I have.

The straights can be dicks, that's for damned sure.

I will say, since this hits particularly close to home, the narrative of bi people not being oppressed enough to be in the community is shit. I get that you are talking about actually straight people who are just pretending to get into places not for them, but it's also something I hear a lot as an actual bi woman who happens to be dating a man atm. It's a fun place to be where the straights think you're just slutty or pretending or refusing to "pick a side" while gay people also think you're just slutty or pretending or refusing to "pick a side". And while I will not get any hate for walking around town holding my boyfriend's hand, I will get it in spaces that are specifically meant to be for people like me because somehow being with a guy means I'm not still crushing on every pretty girl I see.

Small tangent, but it's important to me. Sorry.

 

[Fallowfox]

I suppose the whole discussion rather shows thought that lgbt pride is a vehicle a lot of people, even those not necessarily lesbian, gay, bi or trans, view as attractive and fun
and that's nice. :]

 

[KimberVaile]

The straights can be dicks, that's for damned sure.

I will say, since this hits particularly close to home, the narrative of bi people not being oppressed enough to be in the community is shit. I get that you are talking about actually straight people who are just pretending to get into places not for them, but it's also something I hear a lot as an actual bi woman who happens to be dating a man atm. It's a fun place to be where the straights think you're just slutty or pretending or refusing to "pick a side" while gay people also think you're just slutty or pretending or refusing to "pick a side". And while I will not get any hate for walking around town holding my boyfriend's hand, I will get it in spaces that are specifically meant to be for people like me because somehow being with a guy means I'm not still crushing on every pretty girl I see.

Small tangent, but it's important to me. Sorry.

It's fine, I was mostly referring to straight guys wanting to slip into the community cause it's hip or cool. If you're a bi in a straight passing relationship, I think that's fine. I can trust people are being forthcoming when they say they are bi, though on occasion, some were just straights that were lying so they can be 'hip' or what have you. I'm not okay with that. Regardless, don't think you have to pick side really, I don't see the need to gatekeep over how oppressed you are.
Though it does stand as my strongest connection to the community, shared oppression; I'd like to think there are more than just one motivation as to why you might be drawn to the community. I think that's fine.

 

[Bink]

I'm sorry about that Bink. For my part, I've always felt part of pride month is finding communion with your fellow gays, who've had similarly suffered or struggled under narrow minded societal norms. Sometimes we end up finding pushback from the people closest to us. Awful thing, but I hope it might help some to know others have struggled in much the same way, and that it gets better in time.

Sorry if, that wasn't all too helpful. I'm not the best motivational speaker, but I try.

I'm really sorry that happened. It's a really unfortunate part of life that no matter how much we love ourselves, there will always be someone who does, or who just can't understand. Do what you need to do to feel proud of yourself, it doesn't have to be a bright and shining parade, and keep yourself safe. I hope your dad will come around, but at the very least know that there are a whole bunch of people in the world who already understand and who will love the shit out of you as you are.

Thanks for the words both of you. I think it'll work out in the end.. I hope anyways.. I'm just kinda in shock that he could even think that saying that to me is an acceptable response. Stepmom is a little less freaked out, so I'm hopeful she'll be able to help him sort through his issues..

Sucks to have people close to you turn on you, but on the other hand its very encouraging to have the people who really care there to support you, which is how my friends and mom have been so far, I could have it worse off for sure.


On a side note, I was very surprised to hear that some people in the LGBT community kinda rag on bisexuals for being "sluts" or "on the fence"... I would expect better than such hypocrisy from people who cry when others try to say that gay can be changed...

 

[MCtheBeardie]

Well, if my input helps, I’d like to confess, right now that I am Heteroromantic. I’d rather be in a relationship with a cis man, I will fully admit this. You can judge whether or not I’m LGBT+ or not because of this, but I only know one thing for sure- I’m not trying to shoehorn myself into the community! I always felt that something was wrong with me sexually- that I don’t react to things or feel pleasure from things I normally should be. I put time and research into this, and decided that Demisexuality was a perfect description for me. If you don’t count it as LGBT+, then at least acknowledge that there are straight people out there using it as a badge of support, rather than doing for the sake of looking cool.

I might be mistaking the sentiment towards Demisexuality with the sentiment expressed for Demiromanticism, but I hope my input helped.

I suppose the whole discussion rather shows thought that lgbt pride is a vehicle a lot of people, even those not necessarily lesbian, gay, bi or trans, view as attractive and fun
and that's nice. :]

It's fine, I was mostly referring to straight guys wanting to slip into the community cause it's hip or cool. If you're a bi in a straight passing relationship, I think that's fine. I can trust people are being forthcoming when they say they are bi, though on occasion, some were just straights that were lying so they can be 'hip' or what have you. I'm not okay with that. Regardless, don't think you have to pick side really, I don't see the need to gatekeep over how oppressed you are.
Though it does stand as my strongest connection to the community; I'd like to think there are more than just one motivation as to why you might be drawn to the community. I think that's fine.

 

[Simo]

Here's an odd thing: Sometimes, I kind of wish I was bi, so I had more choices in everything. I mean, you get a lot more to choose from, that way, from dating, to RP, to just noting others, to porn.

In fact, just the other day I was bemoaning the lack of gay skunk porn, on FA: took three or so pages to find a gay image, under new sunk entries! Oh, the various and small injustices of it all.

But alas, there's just nothing stirring down there or romantically, sexually, when it comes to females: I did 'try' as a teen, as I thought, too it was more 'cool' to be bi than gay, but just didn't work.