Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Super Straight?

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    2
    Userbars
    0
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Time Online
    9 m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    Rep Power
    0
    It seems to me that society is already confused about what is offensive. If a person is proud of the fact that he accepts a relationship exclusively with the opposite sex and considers it the only right decision, he is entitled to it. Others should not perceive his position as offensive.

  2. #42
    Numbkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    50
    Userbars
    2
    Thanks
    491
    Thanked 197 Times in 23 Posts
    Downloads
    28
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Time Online
    6 d 8 h 14 m
    Avg. Time Online
    26 m
    Rep Power
    1

    Super Straight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zachafer View Post
    Wikipedia's article on Intersex states The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. I don't think the super straight definition really considered this rare medical condition. My interpretation is super straight excludes people who made a cognizant decision to undergo hormone therapy and/or sex reassignment surgery. Personally I am fine with someone identifying however they want, and I expect to have the same graces afforded to myself, be it straight, gay, super straight, super gay, non-smokers-only, doesn't-already-have-kids, etc. However when dating or searching for your potential life partner I think it's fair for someone to include/exclude people who have made decisions you agree/disagree with, beliefs contrary to yours (religion), mentalities that do not align with your own.

    For debate purposes I don't have much interest in the term's origins. I think now that it's out there we should discuss it's definition at face value. It is not fair to assume someone using the term today is aware of its origins (i.e. myself)
    Replying because about 2% of the world population are red heads so when you think of it like that, intersex isn’t really as rare as you’d think.

    As far as “super straight” I think of it as “monosexual”. I can’t get my head around being attracted to only one sex so I don’t know how natural it is or how much of it is a choice, but with those thoughts I wonder if I’m discounting gay people who truly are monosexual and it’s not really a choice.

    I imagine most people who flaunt a super straight label do it to stir the pot, I don’t have much respect for it but at the same time I do have friends that cannot deal with certain genitals for whatever reason, but they don’t announce it because of how hurtful it could be.

    Edit: I also just remembered when it comes to genitals I don’t think you can really tell if somebody has transitioned or not, so when it comes to preferences you’re just discounting trans people because you want to or making decisions based off misinformation like somebody said before. Anyway the term super straight definitely irks me.
    Last edited by Numbkins; 1 Week Ago at 06:46 AM.

  3. #43
    Druid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    321
    Userbars
    8
    Thanks
    598
    Thanked 1,554 Times in 234 Posts
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Time Online
    18 d 9 h 26 m
    Avg. Time Online
    59 m
    Rep Power
    2
    I’m extremely suspicious of “super straight” as just like, a presentation of transphobia that’s trying to sneak away from how bigoted it is by tying it to an identity. I’m not straight but I am monosexual - I am fully, 100% gay, only ever attracted to women, and preference-wise generally femme for femme. Regardless, idc what genitals a potential partner has. There’s fun stuff to do with whatever might be going on down there.

    It could be argued that I prefer the AFAB situation, but the same way someone might prefer brunettes - it’s a light preference that maybe is tied to a pattern in people I’m into but is nowhere near make or break level. My attraction to someone is pretty tied to femininity, so I do imagine that if I met a trans women with no intention of ever doing hormone therapy it’s pretty unlikely I’d be attracted to her, but this is more tied to secondary sex characteristics like stubble. And that isn’t necessarily true even - Gia Gunn pre-transition is still feminine AF, and if she weren’t such a fucking idiot lmao is someone I could find attractive.

    That to say, I feel like the concept of “only being into cis people” in most cases is probably born of latent transphobia, whether that’s conscious or not. Also unsure what the line is in “super straight/gay” - if a trans person gets bottom surgery do they magically switch from “def not attracted to” to “could potentially be attracted to”? I’m not saying that absolutely no one is repulsed by certain types of genitals, but if stigma around transness in general were removed I think it’s probably a much smaller minority than current polling would indicate.

    Also, “which individuals am I actively attracted to” is a very different question than “what is my orientation”. If we’re talking like, to the point of being open to dating/intimacy with someone, I’m attracted to a very small fraction of the women I know. If we’re more talking like, finding someone hot, that percentage is much larger but still nowhere near 100. If I were to do the math on what characteristics these people have in common it would be like,

    ..and it strikes me as really bizarre to come in preemptively like “but I know for sure this whole demographic is out”. Kind of find it the same kind of gross as saying “I’d NEVER date X race”

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Druid For This Useful Post:

    Zapdos (1 Week Ago)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •