Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

I’m pretty comfortable in saying that I am straight. Saying you like “gay” things, whatever that means, or saying “gay” things, doesn’t change that fact.
It’s more then a matter of semantics.

Okay, issue now cleared up.

Ugh, most peculiar fellow. An “ugly drunk” as one woman described him to me.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I’m straight is just what people tell themselves to sleep at night.

It’s ok. You’re not going to accidentally wake up married to a lumberjack.

But innate straightness is a laughable concept.

Sex is sex, semantics is semantics, and water is wet.

People who have identified (or who have behaved in a way so that others have identified them) as LGBT have experience violence, discrimination, and multiple forms of erasure. That's not up for debate.

You might think that the labels are inaccurate (or some form of denial which, okay?), but it doesn't change the fact that people have experienced real harm because of these labels and that these labels persist in our society strongly enough that when it comes to actual lived experiences of people, they have an impact.

Like, I know this sounds blunt, but what does this add to the discussion we're having? And how does it in any way invalidate what I've said? (If anything, if everyone is not-straight, then by definition you have actually proved that my original statement is 100% true, so . . . .)

Straightness ain’t a thing. But that doesn’t mean everything is gay. Which means your idea about the character and reversal of their sexuality is moot.

Sex/Sexuality is a socially constructed dynamic that just happens to make new people.

So I fail to see what you’re taking issue with? If it ain’t “benefiting the straight male” then it’s usually met with the response you’re talking about, which makes it moot.

We can talk all day about the media’s role in the mess, but I don’t see why we’re even discussing sexuality. It’s moot.

Gender and gender expression is far more telling than sex (you have admitted it twice now). Hence my sex is sex, semantics is semantics, and water is wet.

Since the term “straightness” is an issue with you, I’ll just go with heterosexual, which is the accepted definition for those who are, indeed, only attracted to members of the opposite sex. Does that work for you?

Is mammalian reproduction a social construct?


Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Tired: debating straightwashing historical figures in fiction
Wired: denying straightness exists

That's fine. But heterosexual ain't the norm nor ingrained nor absolute, so it doesn't really change anything about my statement. Hence my semantics is semantics.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I’m not sure what you’re really arguing here. It is ingrained, and it can be absolute to those who are heterosexual, and I’m going by it’s actual definition, which isn’t semantics in this case.

It's learned behavior, and it's not absolute. And definitions are very much a part of semantics. That's like 90% of what semantics is, but sure.

In fact, heterosexual used to be a perversion and aberration.

While I believe sexuality is likely much more fluid than we are led to believe (I am not even going to get into the impossibility of 'straightness' because frankly that comes off like presumptive nonsense), simply the fact that there have been those all through history that cling to an identity of straightness, to the point that they 'other' those who they suspect or know as being 'not straight', has quantitative and measurable effects on how those others have been treated. So I don't see how arguing the semantics of straightness is much of an argument to what Takoma was saying.

“Straight” have killed, raped, and othered “straight” throughout history. It’s not exclusive to “gay”, and that’s what makes it moot.

It doesn't need to be exclusive, but if it was a motivator, the point definitely holds.

note to self: stop venturing out of the horror threads

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Hopefully, this cute dog video lifts your mood.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

If it can be reversed the point doesn’t hold, and that’s what makes it moot.

Just to be clear though. "Gender" is the social construct, the male/female roles. Sex is the biological imperative that we can observe in large swaths of the animal kingdom to perpetuate their species. If heterosexuality was an aberration, in times prior to modern fertilization technologies, then we probably wouldn't be here.


Now, those people who would use the biological function of sexuality as an excuse to demonize and castigate those people who are not naturally heterosexual are awful and horrid people. I hope we can live in a society where we can respect the biological function of sex while also respecting those who engage in the recreational functions of sex.

The word and its usage used to be a perversion and aberration. Or rather...a pathology.

Procreation/reproduction is the biological imperative. Sex is sex.

And yes, gender is also a social construct...but the argument that @Takoma11 is trying to make is far better explained through gender/gender expression than sexuality.

If we take an honest look at history we will see that at one time everyone was having sex with anyone and everyone. Then it become something that was only meant to create new people. And now it's become a defining trait about how people live their lives. When, in reality, sex...is just sex.

It's weird, because you're acting as if you've proved something.

Yet I have not seen from you a single example of what I was talking about (or even what you say you've shown can be reversed).

What is an example of a broad cultural force causing straight people to hide or deny their sexuality and to instead conform to an LGBT identity? If you can't name such an example, I'm just going to assume that this is poor-taste trolling.