Anonymous #1 1d

Political lesbian 🫩

8

Anonymous #1 1d

Literally what does this even mean lol

6

Anonymous #3 1d

I 100% disagree. Not everybody considers their sexuality as a core tenet to their humanity lol a lot of people literally just want who wants them. I think if hot straight women expressed interest in 5'4 twinks the same way DL trade does, a lot of 5'4 twinks probably would be open to dating women lol

5

Anonymous OP 1d

There’s also an orientation for that. It’s called pansexual

13

Anonymous OP 1d

Your statement also leads to an argument which wouid allow our community to lose rights and protections. If orientation is indeed NOT innate , but a choice , then say goodbye to all equality , starting with same sex marriage

2

Anonymous #3 1d

That's literally not even what pansexual is you're literally just saying things and missing the point that I'm making. My point is I think sexuality for a lot of people is circumstantial rather than innate. That doesn't mean that you suddenly aren't the sexuality you identify as just because in an alternate reality you might identify differently

0

Anonymous OP 1d

there are plenty of hot women who express interest in 5’4 twinks and those twinks still only date men because they are GAY

7

Anonymous #4 1d

I said hot straight women and there aren't plenty even if you remove the word straight lol just because you make statements doesn't mean those statements are true

4

Anonymous #3 1d

people shouldn’t be punished for it regardless of whether it’s “innate” or a “choice,” religious affiliation is a protected category and it is a choice that one makes.

6

Anonymous #3 1d

Literally what are you talking about? Interracial marriage became legalized in a similar way to gay marriage. You think having some innate and exclusive attraction to another race is what guarantees your right to marry outside of your race? No lol that's not how it works you could get a divorce and decide to marry your own race and that wouldn't be reason to take away the right to interracial marriage. Obergefell v Hodges ruling makes no mention of whether being gay is a choice

5

Anonymous #3 1d

it isn’t innate. there has been a ton of research into whether a “gay gene” exists and the consensus is that being gay/bi/straight is a combination of nature and nurture. there are internal factors that may prime someone to be queer, but their background, cultural setting, and own free will/agency determine whether someone is or not.

5

Anonymous OP 1d

someone who is attracted to both men and women but chooses to only have relationships with women (also generally tends to have a lesbian and/or feminist centric social and/or political community)

9

Anonymous #6 21h

Tell me when you chose. And you can win the argument.

1

Anonymous #6 21h

Tell Me when you chose to be attracted to who your attracted to. I’ll wait

0

Anonymous #3 21h

I can tell you multiple times when I've chosen to be attracted to someone lol now what

8

Anonymous OP 21h

hate to break it to you man but that is a minority experience

1

Anonymous #3 21h

But anyways the argument isn't that you choose who you're attracted to, it's more that to some extent you chose in how you categorize your attraction. I.e. potential romantic/sexual partner or just someone you think looks good. If this applies to everyone of the gender you pursue, why can't it also apply to everyone of the gender you dont pursue?

7

Anonymous #4 20h

Yeah so just because you make statements doesn't mean those statements are fact lol you can't just assert that it's a minority experience and frame it as breaking the news to me

3

Anonymous OP 20h

You made a choice to be attracted to someone? How’d that go. What were the factors that you sampled? What did you try with others first? Sigh. You don’t make A choice. Attraction is innate

-2

Anonymous OP 20h

When you grow up You’ll Understand better

0

Anonymous #6 20h

This is the most Republican thing I’ve ever heard. And I’ve heard it since the 90s

-1

Anonymous #3 20h

What were the factors I sampled? What does that even mean lmao rephrase the question. And then wdym "what did you try with others first" lol are you arguing that prior experiences could influence whether you chose to be attracted to someone?

6

Anonymous OP 20h

Interracial marriage was outlaws based on innate qualities. Skin color. The same was SSM was outlawed. For innate qualities. Honestly. You need to mature a little

-1

Anonymous OP 20h

No the argument is choice. To make an appropriate choice. One must try things. How do you know If you choose an apple or banana. Based on experience

-2

Anonymous OP 20h

The reality Is — you didn’t choose your orientation. It developed with puberty. Which then leads to physical attraction to whomever

-2

Anonymous OP 20h

And despite what some think. No amount of conversion therapy is going to change a persons orientation one way or another

-2

Anonymous #3 20h

I'm gonna take a step back from the sexuality conversation and tell you how dumb your argument sounds objectively. First of all, you clearly don't even know what my argument is, but before I explain it again, let's just pretend you do. Are you telling me that a baby eating solid foods for the first time can't point at an apple or banana and make the choice just because they've never tried either? Did I need experience going to college to choose my college? No lol the argument makes no sense

6

Anonymous #3 20h

Second of all, let's say the point you were making was about informed choice. Sure. But how does that question in original context make sense lol so if I said yes I have tried other things what would be your response? "Oh your choice is valid because you tried things"? Does that imply that if somebody never tried anything outside of their sexuality that they don't actually know their sexuality? What point are you making?

8

Anonymous #3 20h

Sexual orientation doesn't develop at puberty, there are prepubescent kids with boyfriends and girlfriends. Beauty standards are learned, your physical attraction to people is influenced by whether your peers would find them attractive

6

Anonymous #3 20h

Nobody is even talking about conversion therapy, you have reading comprehension issues because that has nothing to do with any of the arguments I've made. Especially considering in the post I literally say "sexuality is a choice for SOME people. Like yeah some people couldn't be gay/straight even if they tried". Maybe figure out what you're arguing against

7

Anonymous #3 20h

What are you 20? lol

4

Anonymous #7 17h

How was it?

6

Anonymous #8 16h

Yummy yummy yummy

1

Anonymous OP 15h

I think you’re viewing sexuality labels with a very different mentality than how they’re meant. your capacity for attraction to different genders is sexuality, your actual feelings for someone relies on your context but ISNT your sexuality.

2

Anonymous #9 15h

and, by your logic, everyone’s aroace until they first are attracted to someone. sexuality doesn’t label circumstance, it labels overall capacity

-1

Anonymous #9 15h

I think you're not getting what I'm saying and think you are. Also what is "my logic" because I have said zero things that would suggest that

1

Anonymous OP 14h

“sexuality is circumstantial rather than innate” - you in the comment I replied to if attraction is circumstantial, depriving someone of circumstance means they have “no sexuality,” in your logic. but if we put someone in a box from birth, we wouldn’t say “they’re aroace since they’ve never been attracted to anyone.” so sexuality can’t be circumstantial lmao

-1

Anonymous #9 14h

(technically not aroace as aroace people experience other types of attraction, ykwim)

-1

Anonymous #9 13h

That's not what I said. I said "I think sexuality FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE is circumstantial rather than innate". So no. Not by my logic. By some logic you made up to argue against

1

Anonymous OP 13h

so those people could be put in a box and suddenly have no sexuality? you’re saying “that’s not my logic” then refuse to elaborate lmao

2

Anonymous #9 13h

I literally just elaborated. I never said that sexuality was circumstantial rather than innate. I said FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE it it circumstantial rather than innate. You can't give an example where you're saying "see? It's not circumstantial here!" when I never claimed that it's always circumstantial lol (1/2)

1

Anonymous #9 13h

Also, if you really want me to entertain the argument, that example literally supports the idea of sexuality being circumstantial. If the circumstance of you being secluded from society and having no knowledge of the concept of sexuality leads you to having never experienced sexual attraction, you have no sexuality and it's due to your circumstance. Under other circumstances, you would have a sexuality. We don't know what it'd be, but it wouldn't be a lackthereof

1

Anonymous OP 13h

you said “for a lot of people,” not “for a lot of situations” lol. and my example shows how your logic makes no sense, since literally no one (other than you, apparently?) would claim putting someone in a box deprived them of sexuality lol.

0

Anonymous #9 12h

to be blunt, you have shifted the definition of “sexuality” to one which doesn’t add to the conversation. you are using the phrase “sexuality is a choice,” which has an entire homophobic connotation to it, to make a point about how sexuality isn’t a choice. even in your best examples, their capacity for attraction isn’t a choice.

3

Anonymous #9 12h

Someone who was put in a box for their entire life and has never seen another human wouldn't be claiming anything because they've wouldn't be able to speak. And your example has nothing to do with my logic because I never claimed that it was circumstantial for everyone! Idek how that example is related to what I said lol and I don't know what point you're making by differentiating people vs situations when people all have different situations

1

Anonymous #9 12h

I haven't shifted the definition of anything and i don't give a fuck about the connotation lol everybody in this group is gay so maybe try a little harder to understand the point being made rather than jumping to "that's homophobic!". "Even in your best examples" what examples are you even referring to because I don't recall giving multiple examples

1

Anonymous OP 12h

…are you fr? we separate people & situation since those people have innate differences. either you’re ignoring how humans work or you’re trolling 😭😭😭

2

Anonymous #9 12h

and, OP, you keep refusing to explain your logic outside of throwing out red herrings. “they don’t know the word ‘gay’” bffr.

2