There should be more Queer Catigories

[stickygirl]

As far as the term "queer" goes, I've always felt it was more of a question of general behavior in society at large than your sexual attraction. Someone who dyes their hair into a rainbow and wears bright neon at a pride parade would be "queer" because they are outside of traditional societal norms. Several gay male friends I have simply want live normally, and if you saw them walk down the street you wouldn't look at them twice. They are irritated that they are automatically grouped in with the flamboyant, noisy individuals who seem to co-opt the narrative.

Imagine that - gay men who want to live normally?! I'm pleased for them that they are able to appear heterosexual and avoid all the criticism that might otherwise be directed at them, but who nevertheless accept the benefits of a tolerant society.

If you find flamboyance isn't your thing that's fine, but your decision to label them "queer" smacks of intolerance.

 

[KeithD]

News flash. There isn't one universal gay look or dress code.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As far as the term "queer" goes, I've always felt it was more of a question of general behavior in society at large than your sexual attraction. Someone who dyes their hair into a rainbow and wears bright neon at a pride parade would be "queer" because they are outside of traditional societal norms. Several gay male friends I have simply want live normally, and if you saw them walk down the street you wouldn't look at them twice. They are irritated that they are automatically grouped in with the flamboyant, noisy individuals who seem to co-opt the narrative.

It's an understandable attitude, but also sad and ahistorical; if it weren't for flamboyant, noisy individuals co-opting the narrative at places like Stonewall, "live normally" wouldn't be an option for gay people. A man having a sexual/romantic relationship with another man is very much outside "traditional societal norms", no matter how nicely he dresses and how white his picket fence is.

That said, I do agree that the gay/queer distinction is sometimes (not always) about wanting to assimilate vs. rejecting the expectation to assimilate. Or as it's sometimes put: "not 'gay' as in 'happy', but 'queer' as in 'fuck you'".

Me, I'm a quiet person with my natural hair colour and a wardrobe full of subdued tones. I rarely go to Pride-type events because I don't like crowds. But if I have to pick a label, I'll take "queer" because the alternatives feel too restrictive.

 

[drobert44]

Imagine that - gay men who want to live normally?! I'm pleased for them that they are able to appear heterosexual and avoid all the criticism that might otherwise be directed at them, but who nevertheless accept the benefits of a tolerant society.

If you find flamboyance isn't your thing that's fine, but your decision to label them "queer" smacks of intolerance.

Right. When I went out with my gay lover, nobody would have thought we were gay. Taking a CD out is different, tho.

 

[lovecraft68]

Imagine being annoyed by other people...existing...where they can be seen by anyone. I really can't with this dude.

Here I go wasting my breath, but I don't like to feel like I shouldn't say my mind.
I have no issue with anyone based on anything other than is that persona decent person, or are they an asswipe, and good people and asswipes are in all walks of life.
I don't have gay friends, or black friends etc...I have friends, its that simple.
I say this because I do understand what's behind the other person's comment, but would have never voiced it that way.
Everyone deserves to be treated equally. Problem is equal means you take the same shit everyone else does. It means you accept the same crappy behavior we all do without immediately defaulting to "You don't like me because I'm.....fill in the blank.
There is a big difference between trying to create some awareness and change, and being screechy, preachy and shoving your beliefs in everyone's faces 24/7 which in the end makes you no better, or more rational than the opposing side.
I find that the self proclaimed tolerant are the most intolerant out there. There is no effort to explain to someone why certain jokes or behavior that may have flown years ago is no longer acceptable, instead its screaming at someone that they're an 'ist' Change happens when people can educate people and through civil discourse(talk about something extinct) get them to understand your points. The over defensive attitude, the attacking people while claiming you're the one always attacked, and crudely put the 'pulling of the card" does, at the end of the day, cause people to turn a deaf ear to the legit causes they should care about but have been turned against because the come at me attitude is no different than the religious zealot telling you he's perfect, but you're going to hell.
No movement-to me-was more important than #metoo...and look how fast the Hollywood hypocrites and over the top lunatics ruined it.
You started a thread in feedback, I was going to check out the story, but read the one person's feedback, then your response. Seems if I understood right, you wrote a 'straight' story, but when responding to the feedback kept saying it was a message about "queer" and mentioned that word three times in a very short period of time and pretty much saying you didn't like or get my story because I'm queer even though that wasn't the story. So I refrained from checking it out because I don't need to feel attacked for giving you what you allegedly wanted, honest feedback...honest, not based on "let me check my proper woke etiquette card for how I should respond"
I am willing to bet its why no one else has responded, you were pushy, preachy and judging, passively aggressively falling back to "I'm queer and that's why you didn't like it"
I find it ironic that everyone who wants to be equal-that word again-also needs to constantly 24/7 remind everyone of what they are and how different they are, but no, don't treat me different, I'm like you, but different.
Pardon the rant, this has been building over the course of seeing a lot of posts like this and seeing a long time member of this forum attacked and ganged up on because he made a joke that to him, was funny, but admittedly not proper at this point in time, and again, no attempt to explain hey, you shouldn't say that and here's why, just a woke mod doing what they do best, attacking in packs and armed with self righteous hate, because YOUR hate is fine, but not others.
I'll stop boring you and let you now judge and attack me.
You don't know me, you don't need to and I don't need to prove what kind of person I am or what my beliefs are to you, because unlike you I'm fine with people not agreeing with me or even liking me, and you can call me whatever you want. I know me, I know what I stand for and against and that's all that counts. I don't need a soap box to tell you all about me.

 

[Bramblethorn]

OK. I totally misunderstood what you were getting at. That's an interesting idea. So the idea is that reader A could read a story by author B, and reader A could add tags to that story? That seems like a good idea to me. But Lit would have to lift the 10-tag limit.

That it would.

One of the other things that needs to be done to make tags more useful is standardisation e.g. "female domination" vs. "fdom" vs. "female dominate" (sic) vs. etc. etc. etc.

 

[lovecraft68]

On topic, I agree we need some more specific categories-let's talk again how we were promised a bisexual category and we all know that story-but I can see the sites dilemma of not being able to have something for every possible 'pairing'. I know there's a couple categories here I always found useless and could be absorbed into something else to make room, if room is the issue, but not sure it is.
So, although a valid topic and discussion, cold fact is its not going to happen, if for no other reason than if they did do one category there would be an outcry of how they give that a category, but not this.
Tags are the best way to go at this point, but far from perfect.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That it would.

One of the other things that needs to be done to make tags more useful is standardisation e.g. "female domination" vs. "fdom" vs. "female dominate" (sic) vs. etc. etc. etc.

Which is where inclusion in the tags list would be handy, because those lists visually displays the most commonly used tags. With a feedforward system as you propose, authors over time could choose the most used tags, and a degree of standardisation would kick in.

There'd still be a high degree of randomness though, if thousands of readers each started adding their "off the top of my head" tags. But data handling software nowadays cope with that kind of thing pretty well, I'd have thought.

 

[MelissaBaby]

If the thread is about Queer issues, inevitably, some straight guy is going to mention having something "shoved in his face."

 

[Djmac1031]

In a perfect world, we should be able to write stories based on CATAGORY without worrying about gender identities or sexual orientation, and let the reader decide whether the story is for them. If they read the story and discover gay characters and decide it's not what they wish to read, they could simply move on and find another story.

Of course, we ALL know that's not how it works lol.

I hate the idea of having to segregate any gay stories, BUT I do suppose it's only fair they need to be labeled and / or in a proper category so that a reader is aware before they begin reading it.

While I personally have nothing against gay stories or characters, if I'm looking for an EROTIC story to read, I wouldn't choose one featuring two gay men, because as a straight male that's obviously not something I would find erotic.

That said, I wouldn't down vote a story or post negative comments if I began to read a story then realized it featured gay sex scenes that did nothing for me. I'd just move on.

Unfortunately we know there's plenty of uptight types who wouldn't.

I dunno what the ideal solution would be. Perhaps broadening the categories and / or improving a way to label stories better so that we could inform potential readers BEFORE they click on it.

Perhaps just expanding the Short Description section to allow us to provide more info?

 

[KeithD]

In a perfect world, we should be able to write stories based on CATAGORY without worrying about gender identities or sexual orientation,

Yes, but it's hard to categorize a bisexual story at a Web site that doesn't have any appropriate bisexual category because readers have established that every category not explicitly defined otherwise is strictly a straight category.

 

[KeithD]

I can't help thinking that tags are being asked to do too much work here. I haven't really seen evidence that very many readers use tags to search out stories they want to read. I think they mostly just go on categories, titles, descriptors, and author names. The only thing close to a "better practice" answer to this issue to get the combination of all those elements, including tags, as close to representative as possible and then hope for the best.

I can see the problem of how many separations of bisexual would be needed to make the category attractive to shop in. I don't look much into the GLBT discussion board here because there's too much interest playing there that I'm not interested in. I suppose it would be the same if there was only a single bi category and not at least a "female perspective" and "male perspective" separation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I can't help thinking that tags are being asked to do too much work here. I haven't really seen evidence that very many readers use tags to search out stories they want to read. I think they mostly just go on categories, titles, descriptors, and author names. The only thing close to a "better practice" answer to this issue to get the combination of all those elements, including tags, as close to representative as possible and then hope for the best.

To be clear, I don't think finessing tags within the existing system would achieve much. I agree with your assessment of how readers navigate currently. I'm talking about the long-mooted changes to a navigation system that would make tags much more prominent (and apparently merge categories into the tagging system?)

If/when that happens, then it becomes more important to improve the quality of tags.

 

[Djmac1031]

Yes, but it's hard to categorize a bisexual story at a Web site that doesn't have any appropriate bisexual category because readers have established that every category not explicitly defined otherwise is strictly a straight category.

Oh I agree, and I don't really have a solution other than as I mentioned perhaps allowing for longer story descriptions , so that the author could clearly state what the story contains before a reader even clicks on it.

Example: a description taken from one of my own stories in First Time:

"Two life long friends start to explore intimacy together."

That's about as long a sentence as you can currently fit in Short Description.

If they expanded it and allowed for more characters, it could read something like this:

"Two life long friends start to explore intimacy together. (While this is a First Time story, the characters featured are gay males)"

This would help clarify story content within a catagory,, allowing it to be in the First Time category BUT stating right up front it contains gay elements to help inform the readers choice.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

If they expanded it and allowed for more characters, it could read something like this:

"Two life long friends start to explore intimacy together. (While this is a First Time story, the characters featured are gay males)"

This would help clarify story content within a catagory,, allowing it to be in the First Time category BUT stating right up front it contains gay elements to help inform the readers choice.

You can do that simply by writing a blurb at the top of your story. I posted a story in First Time (Third Time Getting Lucky - Instant messaging engineers engineers' relationship), where the first of three people our protagonist has a date with is another woman - they get as far as kissing at a movie.

I put a preamble in italics:
"This is a girl/boy first-time love story, despite initial appearances. It alludes to previous non-consensual sex having happened, but does not go into any detail. The story is complete." - because it is divided into 3 parts and I didn't want people to be put off by 'Part 1 of 3'.

Went down much better than I expected.

I had an EC story with tagline 'Four bisexuals get very drunk, which had good ratings until about 18 months ago when it and a few of my stories dropped hard, who knows why.

Gay Male doesn't seem to object to heterosexual sex thrown in, but doesn't like female narration. Lesbian Sex is a mixture of not much actual lesbian sex and lots of fantasy lesbians, from what I've read.

 

[TadOverdon]

In a perfect world, we should be able to write stories based on CATAGORY without worrying about gender identities or sexual orientation,

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to fret over categories as we do now.

Because half the so-called controversy is a few people insisting that they not be exposed to one thing or another "by accident." Well, that may be a serious problem, in the case of someone dealing with trauma, but it's nonetheless way short of the mark of a "perfect world," isn't it?

People who are just sick and tired of having to put up with people behaving differently from them - out in public, and everything! - have got a different sort of problem, and it's entirely theirs.

 

[ElectricBlue]

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to fret over categories as we do now.

Because half the so-called controversy is a few people insisting that they not be exposed to one thing or another "by accident." Well, that may be a serious problem with, in the case of someone dealing with trauma, but it's nonetheless way short of the mark of a "perfect world," isn't it?

Agree this.

For supposedly "adult" readers on an adult web site, there sure are a lot of folk who shudder at marshmallows - and these discussions are generally more about them than anything else.

Yes, some readers get genuinely triggered (and better tags would have to be a help for them), but mostly it's the squick factor, "But I don't like that, so you should think about me when you write", which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Some people just need to harden the fuck up and learn to hit the back-space key.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Here I go wasting my breath, but I don't like to feel like I shouldn't say my mind.
I have no issue with anyone based on anything other than is that persona decent person, or are they an asswipe, and good people and asswipes are in all walks of life.
I don't have gay friends, or black friends etc...I have friends, its that simple.
I say this because I do understand what's behind the other person's comment, but would have never voiced it that way.
Everyone deserves to be treated equally. Problem is equal means you take the same shit everyone else does. It means you accept the same crappy behavior we all do without immediately defaulting to "You don't like me because I'm.....fill in the blank.
There is a big difference between trying to create some awareness and change, and being screechy, preachy and shoving your beliefs in everyone's faces 24/7 which in the end makes you no better, or more rational than the opposing side.
I find that the self proclaimed tolerant are the most intolerant out there. There is no effort to explain to someone why certain jokes or behavior that may have flown years ago is no longer acceptable, instead its screaming at someone that they're an 'ist' Change happens when people can educate people and through civil discourse(talk about something extinct) get them to understand your points. The over defensive attitude, the attacking people while claiming you're the one always attacked, and crudely put the 'pulling of the card" does, at the end of the day, cause people to turn a deaf ear to the legit causes they should care about but have been turned against because the come at me attitude is no different than the religious zealot telling you he's perfect, but you're going to hell.
No movement-to me-was more important than #metoo...and look how fast the Hollywood hypocrites and over the top lunatics ruined it.
You started a thread in feedback, I was going to check out the story, but read the one person's feedback, then your response. Seems if I understood right, you wrote a 'straight' story, but when responding to the feedback kept saying it was a message about "queer" and mentioned that word three times in a very short period of time and pretty much saying you didn't like or get my story because I'm queer even though that wasn't the story. So I refrained from checking it out because I don't need to feel attacked for giving you what you allegedly wanted, honest feedback...honest, not based on "let me check my proper woke etiquette card for how I should respond"
I am willing to bet its why no one else has responded, you were pushy, preachy and judging, passively aggressively falling back to "I'm queer and that's why you didn't like it"
I find it ironic that everyone who wants to be equal-that word again-also needs to constantly 24/7 remind everyone of what they are and how different they are, but no, don't treat me different, I'm like you, but different.
Pardon the rant, this has been building over the course of seeing a lot of posts like this and seeing a long time member of this forum attacked and ganged up on because he made a joke that to him, was funny, but admittedly not proper at this point in time, and again, no attempt to explain hey, you shouldn't say that and here's why, just a woke mod doing what they do best, attacking in packs and armed with self righteous hate, because YOUR hate is fine, but not others.
I'll stop boring you and let you now judge and attack me.
You don't know me, you don't need to and I don't need to prove what kind of person I am or what my beliefs are to you, because unlike you I'm fine with people not agreeing with me or even liking me, and you can call me whatever you want. I know me, I know what I stand for and against and that's all that counts. I don't need a soap box to tell you all about me.

It wasa fantasy story in which two men get marries and one of the men had a vagina. I made that posting under the assumption that even straight people would know a closet allegory when they saw one. And I was wrong. I never said I hated the guy. Pointing out that straight people might not have the lived experience or cultural knowledge to grasp what I was aiming for in the piece, isn't an attack or a sign of hatred. It's an observation.

People are different, and that means something. It's not inherently good or bad to point these differences out, it just is a thing that exists and is true. People are different and have different needs and experiences. In the same way that not every shoe in the store is going to fit your foot, not every story or work of art is going to speak to you. If a shoe doesn't fit or a story doesn't click with you, the solution is the same. Put it down and move on.

If I make a shoe and ask how to make it better, "The shoe doesn't fit me" isn't a very helpful answer. Obviously they don't fit you, they're my size. A helpful answer would have been opinions about the color, or the quality of the laces and materials. the stitch work. Y'know, the craft things.

Not everything is made with you in mind. And that's okay.

 

[HectorBidon]

Since the site is not likely to introduce new categories or change the tagging system, perhaps it's up to the posters on this thread to come up with a pragmatic workaround. Here is one idea.

--- Come up with a limited set of new alt-categories and agree on their names. For example: queer, bisexual, femdom.

--- Come up with a standard way for authors to indicate that their stories belong to one of the new alt-categories. The story will still have to be published in one of the existing categories, but, for example, it could include the tag "queer" and its blurb could begin with a standard code, like *QUEER*.

This way the alt-category would be efficiently encoded into the blurb (similar to MFF type codes), and so it would be immediately apparent on the various hubs and lists that show Title and Blurb. There will undoubtedly still be people who complain about a story's content, but that would happen no matter what.

This way the story would also be searchable via tags. Note that these three tags already exist. There are already ~150 stories with tag "queer," ~6,800 with tag "bisexual," and ~15,400 with tag "femdom."

Stories that don't require alt-categorization (i.e., most stories) would still be tagged and blurbed as they are now.

--- Come up with a brief description of alt-categorization and ask that it be included in the site FAQ.

--- Come up with a "white paper" entitled something like "What if my story doesn't fit within the existing categories." It would explain how alt-categorization works and how we would expect authors and readers to respect it. We'd hope to get Laurel's blessing and have this paper included in the "Writer's Resources."

--- Start using this new alt-categorization system so that it becomes accepted.

Maybe there's a better way to do it, but it seems to me that some kind of popular grass-roots approach like this might have an actual chance of bringing about something like what the OP is looking for.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Since the site is not likely to introduce new categories or change the tagging system, perhaps it's up to the posters on this thread to come up with a pragmatic workaround. Here is one idea.

--- Come up with a limited set of new alt-categories and agree on their names. For example: queer, bisexual, femdom.

--- Come up with a standard way for authors to indicate that their stories belong to one of the new alt-categories. The story will still have to be published in one of the existing categories, but, for example, it could include the tag "queer" and its blurb could begin with a standard code, like *QUEER*.

This way the alt-category would be efficiently encoded into the blurb (similar to MFF type codes), and so it would be immediately apparent on the various hubs and lists that show Title and Blurb. There will undoubtedly still be people who complain about a story's content, but that would happen no matter what.

This way the story would also be searchable via tags. Note that these three tags already exist. There are already ~150 stories with tag "queer," ~6,800 with tag "bisexual," and ~15,400 with tag "femdom."

Stories that don't require alt-categorization (i.e., most stories) would still be tagged and blurbed as they are now.

--- Come up with a brief description of alt-categorization and ask that it be included in the site FAQ.

--- Come up with a "white paper" entitled something like "What if my story doesn't fit within the existing categories." It would explain how alt-categorization works and how we would expect authors and readers to respect it. We'd hope to get Laurel's blessing and have this paper included in the "Writer's Resources."

--- Start using this new alt-categorization system so that it becomes accepted.

Maybe there's a better way to do it, but it seems to me that some kind of popular grass-roots approach like this might have an actual chance of bringing about something like what the OP is looking for.

We could make it an unspoken standard to include pairing type in tags.

The formatting can be X/X

F for Cis Female
M for Cis Male
FTM for Trans Men
MTF for Trans Women
NB for Non Binary

The order of the paring would be in alphabetical order. So a story featuring a cis man and cis woman having sex would be F/M

More slashes can be added on to indicate a group. F/M/M or like F/F/MTF

if there is a notable dom/sub dynamic the submissive will have their respective letter in lowercase f/M or F/m

Additional tags to remember would be
-Bisexual Main Character (if the Bisexual Main Character tag isn't present, one can assume the character is monosexual and whatever orientation the pairing tag would imply them to be.)
-Trans Main Character
-BQ4Q (Which is short for by queer for queer)
-IDNF ("Identity not fetishized" Be it disabled, interracial, or queer, this tag just lets the reader know that they won't be seeing aspects of a character's marginalized identity as an item of spectacle within the story. )

Any additional tag suggestions feel free to add!

 

[MaiaEmpire]

It would be nice to have a more dynamic tagging system like that. I'm honestly not even sure if I'm doing it correctly, and my stories don't always fit into the categories they provide.

 

[stickygirl]

When people don't like you, or agree with you, they aren't generally attacking your rights, or your right to exist.
That's not the case for queer people.
And you say you don't have 'gay friends' and I'll bet that's true. You might know gay people who are nice to you, but I know they aren't your friends, because if they were? You'd know the struggles they face, just to live, and you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying here.

Maybe his gay friends do the sensible thing and keep their gayness secret - you know like going stealth? That way they might never know about the struggles and even if they did, they could walk on by. Certain UK judges and politicians in the 20th century were closet gays and it was activists like Peter Tatchell who outed them in order to force discussion and change. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge that sentenced Alan Turin was gay.

The problem with the pearl clutchers who claim 'gays have got their rights' so 'why won't they shut up', are, for example, the laws being introduced in numerous Rep states and the complacency being shown by the Boris UK govt. LGBT rights are once again under attack: the word 'gay' is being banned in schools and transgender people regarded as pedos and rapists.

Outside of discussion forums like this, LGBT people are by their nature forgiving and tolerant - they have to be to survive. Not so the closet regret-gays that claim 'gay panic' as a defense when they've shot their load and find themselves so appalled that they might have gay feelings, they kill the person they've had sex with.

Forums and discussions are a necessary process, just as passing humane laws are necessary. If you claim people shouldn't rock the boat and should be grateful for their rights, then stop knocking holes in their boat or object when you see them baling out water.

So... these tag things - super idea! Perhaps a second line under the title in the submission process would also prompt people to offer a little insight into the story content? It must be rotten for deniers to have gay words leaping off the page to infect their brains.

 

[AlinaX]

...
I find that the self proclaimed tolerant are the most intolerant out there. There is no effort to explain to someone why certain jokes or behavior that may have flown years ago is no longer acceptable, instead its screaming at someone that they're an 'ist' Change happens when people can educate people and through civil discourse(talk about something extinct) get them to understand your points. The over defensive attitude, the attacking people while claiming you're the one always attacked, and crudely put the 'pulling of the card" does, at the end of the day, cause people to turn a deaf ear to the legit causes they should care about but have been turned against because the come at me attitude is no different than the religious zealot telling you he's perfect, but you're going to hell.
...

Gosh, what a pointless rant.

I'm so tired about people complaining about how minorities are too extreme and are shutting down attempts at civil discourse. Yes, you're right that civil discourse appears to be going extinct, but that's because one side is saying:

"You know, gender, sexuality, the very nature of attraction, hey, even human biology itself, are fundamentally far more complex than the simple binary model that we are taught about from birth in this allocishet-normative, white-supremacist, patriarchal culture we've created in the West."

And the other side is screaming:

"How dare you call us privileged! You wokeys are all special snowflakes who can't take any criticism! Men in dresses are mentally ill rapists and we're going to legislate the fuck out of your existence!"

 

[IWillEndYou]

A friend once asserted that everyone is a degree of bisexual, all they need is the right situation. Sometimes the situation is a couple of drinks, and sometimes it is the complete absence of the gender one is attracted to for an extended amount of time. Of course, that's just the physical nature of it. Your orientation isn't about who you have sex with, it's who you want to sign a mortgage with.

Citation needed. Which scientific study is your opinionated friend basing their assertion on? Where is their empirical evidence? On what basis do they consider themselves an authority on the sexuality of every human on the planet? Which standardised, repeatable, methodologically-sound, ethically-approved and peer-reviewed study did they conduct before coming to their conclusion? Please ask them to reference this study, and maybe their assertions might be taken seriously.

Attempting to put 7.93 billion people under one label is difficult enough to rigorously test even with a scientific method. It's irresponsible to try foisting any label on every human based on one's own anecdotal observations of a tiny sample of those they know. It becomes offensive when that label isn't something the people it's being foisted on have ever claimed for themselves.

Maybe your friend has observed people being bisexual after drinking or during the extended absence of the gender they're usually attracted to. On the other hand, many other people (including me) have observed people not being bisexual after drinking or being without the gender they're usually attracted to. Having attended an all-girls boarding school through my teens, I can confirm that the absence of one gender for extended periods of time, is not in itself a cause of bisexuality. The wider issue is that if we all use anecdotal evidence and ignore the inherent selection biases of our tiny samples, we might all come to ridiculous conclusions. An extreme example of this is: "I live in Greece and all my friends and family are Greek, therefore everyone must be Greek or have a trace of Greek in them. If anyone says they're not Greek whatsoever, they must be intolerant or in denial about their true Greek identity."

Your friend really should learn to speak for themselves. They don't get to dictate the sexual identity of all 7.93 billion humans, especially when their assertions can easily be proven incorrect. The same goes for you. I'd need evidence of your claim that orientation isn't about who one has sex with, but who they pick as a long-term partner. It might have made more sense if you'd said that both these things factor into a person's orientation, but saying orientation has nothing to do with physical attraction is out-and-out rubbish.

As a general note: I feel it's good thing, even when one believes they're accepting and inclusive, to check themselves every once in a while to be sure they're not the ones misunderstanding others. If enough people cross-examine themselves, it'll make this board more enjoyable for everyone. I've lurked for over a decade and among the mostly civil posters, there've always been some bad faith actors. I refer, for example to those who make hypocritical rants about other people's kinks despite their own kink arguably being the most egregious of all, or busybodies who've appointed themselves guardians of the site, or tiresome posters who wilfully misunderstand others to further their agenda-of-the-day. That said, as a longtime observer with healthy separation, this phenomenon of moral superiority combined with intellectual tunnel vision, is currently at its all-time high.

That is all. Please carry on interacting and I'll carry on observing. It's always illuminating. Have a great day

 

[Kumquatqueen]

On the 'everyone is a bit bisexual', that's probably only true if you define 'bit' to include such things as 'that person looks attractive from the back/side or 'has nice hair' but not interested in the whole person because of their sex, or people where you might fall for their personality and be magnetised by it, but not interested in their body parts.

It is true that one fuck of a lot more people are somewhat bisexual than let themselves think it or give themselves credit for it, as any late-night drinking establishment will prove. People being gay/straight 'except for $Name' is practically a cliché. Over the last 20 years people have got more relaxed about both gay/lesbian people and in turn straight and gay folk have got more chilled out about bisexuality. I remember a LGBT group being set up at work around 2009, with half the attendees on the phone. People in the room introduced themselves as gay/lesbian, until it got to me and I spouted my queer activist credentials and said I was bisexual - because my experience had been that being bi in l/g spaces generally involved a pat on the head and being laughed at, if not active derision. Then the five people on the phone introduced themselves as bi, two saying this was the first time they'd told anyone they were actually bisexual. Then one guy in the room added, 'actually I'm bisexual too', followed by two more, and everyone staring at the last couple. She said "I'm pretty sure I'm still a lesbian", he said "I was sure I was gay..." and various jokes about toaster ovens were made. 10 years earlier that would never have happened, 10 years later no-one would have cared that much (and some of them would likely have come out as genderqueer as well or instead)

Sexuality shouldn't need to be an important part of someone's life - either you have a compatible partner or you don't. I suppose if you're looking and a partner's sex is important to you, then that affects where you might look, but in general if we can move to a society where being any variety of queer is as unremarkable as being left-handed, that would be great.

But given we still get complaints when anyone in a same-sex or gender-nonconforming relationship is depicted on telly or in any workplace where they might be seen by children, we're not there and theres increasing moves to roll back the acceptance achieved in the last 40 years. Just the complaints now are about 'wokeness' not 'perversion', but it's the same thing...