Gay press loses its mind when it discovers gay man starting a male-only camping club

[Jarhyn]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

Agreed. As soon as I saw the title of the thread I thought the same thing. Gay dudes looking for sex aren't likely to be interested in vaginas.

There are many. So sayeth the hottest (trans) gay neighbor and friend I know who gets chased for his body.

The problem is that that is entirely the wrong way to go for most guys in that configuration. Be interested in them as men, not as "men who have those other bits".

The primary consumer of trans-man porn is gay men. Which is interesting -- or perhaps just ironic -- because one of those primary models in that space is shitty about trans people. But whatever.

Yeah, a lot of gay guys do like that. But depending on who you are, that can be enough all on its own to keep most trans men away.

 

[repoman]

Are they attracted to the acquired masculine features from testosterone exposure?

 

[TomC]

Are they attracted to the acquired masculine features from testosterone exposure?

The problem is that there's not really a "they".
Humans, in their enormous variety, are attracted to wildly different things.
Personally, I'm attracted to guys who look, smell, and taste masculine. YMMV.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Are they attracted to the acquired masculine features from testosterone exposure?

Some are attracted more to the bodies and secondary features (I attribute this primarily to shallowness) or to behavioral elements and aspects of perceived masculinity in observable action; personally I don't need "passing" for attraction.

 

[TomC]

Are they attracted to the acquired masculine features from testosterone exposure?

Some are attracted more to the bodies and secondary features (I attribute this primarily to shallowness) or to behavioral elements and aspects of perceived masculinity in observable action; personally I don't need "passing" for attraction.

This is true of most everyone. Most guys find boobs inherently attractive.
I don't, nor can anyone explain this fact. Not really. Boobs are important for feeding a kid, but not to a grown man. Nevertheless..
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Are they attracted to the acquired masculine features from testosterone exposure?

Some are attracted more to the bodies and secondary features (I attribute this primarily to shallowness) or to behavioral elements and aspects of perceived masculinity in observable action; personally I don't need "passing" for attraction.

This is true of most everyone. Most guys find boobs inherently attractive.
I don't, nor can anyone explain this fact. Not really. Boobs are important for feeding a kid, but not to a grown man. Nevertheless..
Tom

A lot of guys do. A lot of us don't. Personally, boobs do nothing for me; then, I'm also pretty f'n gay, too.

We certainly all have body types that do more for us than others.

The extent of need determines whether it is a kink, fetish, neutral, or a squick.

But that's all that is.

The point, which I think continues to stand, is that there are a great number of gay men who have no problem with sex with transmen. It just seems really dickish and unnecessarily exclusionary to exclude trans people from a sexy camping trip just because ONE person doesn't want to have sex with those specific participants -- especially seeing as how the remedy for such is to simply not have sex with those people.

 

[TomC]

The extent of need determines whether it is a kink, fetish, neutral, or a squick.

I'm not sure I want to know exactly what you mean by these words.

I recognize a hot woman when I see one.
Doesn't make me go Sproing, but I get it. But I don't find an obese, dirty, needy and dysfunctional person attractive, regardless of their sex or gender.

Frankly, I don't even find tatted, pierced, guys with expensive hair appealing either. No Sproing. I find manly men, with muscles and hair(short and masculine) and a hard meaty ass Sproing. Other people have differing interests.
This doesn't mean I'd have a problem with someone who didn't match my preference, in the sense of being mean or denying them basic rights.

But I also don't see anyone having the right to go to a private club/campground or get a cake from a particular bakery. I don't think being queer gives you special rights.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

The extent of need determines whether it is a kink, fetish, neutral, or a squick.

I'm not sure I want to know exactly what you mean by these words.

I recognize a hot woman when I see one.
Doesn't make me go Sproing, but I get it. But I don't find an obese, dirty, needy and dysfunctional person attractive, regardless of their sex or gender.

Frankly, I don't even find tatted, pierced, guys with expensive hair appealing either. No Sproing. I find manly men, with muscles and hair(short and masculine) and a hard meaty ass Sproing. Other people have differing interests.
This doesn't mean I'd have a problem with someone who didn't match my preference, in the sense of being mean or denying them basic rights.

But I also don't see anyone having the right to go to a private club/campground or get a cake from a particular bakery. I don't think being queer gives you special rights.
Tom

The difference between a "kink", a "fetish", "neutral" or "squick" is whether you like, NEED, are indifferent towards, or turned off by, respectively.

As stated, there are plenty of hot guys that match that description but lack penises.

And there is a conflation in your post between public business and private venue. Personally, I will socially censure the organizer here because he's being a dick about keeping out "undesirables" that are not universally "undesirable". This is not calling for government censure.

For the baker, I call public censure because it is a public business

 

[ZiprHead]

If you want to discuss your personal sexual desires, please start another thread in an appropriate forum. Thanks.

 

[TomC]

If you want to discuss your personal sexual desires, please start another thread in an appropriate forum. Thanks.

Thank you. I didn't care for where that conversation was going.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

It just seems really dickish and unnecessarily exclusionary to exclude trans people from a sexy camping trip just because ONE person doesn't want to have sex with those specific participants -- especially seeing as how the remedy for such is to simply not have sex with those people.

Incredible that Jarhyn cannot extend his reasoning here. Why exclude women from a 'sexy camping trip', Jarhyn? Why isn't that "really dickish"?

 

[Emily Lake]

Have you noticed how much of the supposedly anti-trans legislation placed on the books lately has, in fact, allowed discrimination against gays as well?

Can you provide some examples?

 

[Emily Lake]

Not everyone who is gay, in fact shockingly few who are gay, share the aversions and fetishes of this particular organizer. Hell, even if I did have a penis fetish (I merely have penis kink)

This is some incredible offensively homophobic bullshit. Referring to sexual orientation as a FETISH is fucking straight out of the days when psychologists considered homosexuality to be a sexual disorder and employed conversion therapy to "fix" it.

I'm not about to sit here and be silent while this insulting bigoted homophobic crap gets foisted off as if it's a fucking virtue.

Gay men don't have a "penis fetish" and lesbians don't have a "vagina fetish". That's a disgustingly regressive view. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong in your head that you say that shit seriously?

 

[Politesse]

Have you noticed how much of the supposedly anti-trans legislation placed on the books lately has, in fact, allowed discrimination against gays as well?

Can you provide some examples?

Indiana HB 1416
Indiana IN SB 300
Iowa SF 508
Iowa HF 2273
Iowa SF 2193
Iowa SF 2194
Kentucky SB 90
Oklahoma SB 1515
South Dakota SB 109
West Virginia HB 2985


In all cases, the primary intended purpose of the legislation was to clearly persecute trans people, but the wording was so vague and general as to allow discrimination against any group evangelicals should choose to target, part of the reason most of these died in committee. But you're naive as hell if you don't think trans and gay rights are linked.

 

[TomC]

Have you noticed how much of the supposedly anti-trans legislation placed on the books lately has, in fact, allowed discrimination against gays as well?

Can you provide some examples?

Indiana HB 1416
Indiana IN SB 300
Iowa SF 508
Iowa HF 2273
Iowa SF 2193
Iowa SF 2194
Kentucky SB 90
Oklahoma SB 1515
South Dakota SB 109
West Virginia HB 2985


In all cases, the primary intended purpose of the legislation was to clearly persecute trans people, but the wording was so vague and general as to allow discrimination against any group evangelicals should choose to target, part of the reason most of these died in committee. But you're naive as hell if you don't think trans and gay rights are linked.

I'm confused.
I just googled Indiana HB 1416.

It appears to be about C19, funding efforts at remote work places.

Establishes the remote worker grant program (program).

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Not everyone who is gay, in fact shockingly few who are gay, share the aversions and fetishes of this particular organizer. Hell, even if I did have a penis fetish (I merely have penis kink)

This is some incredible offensively homophobic bullshit. Referring to sexual orientation as a FETISH is fucking straight out of the days when psychologists considered homosexuality to be a sexual disorder and employed conversion therapy to "fix" it.

I'm not about to sit here and be silent while this insulting bigoted homophobic crap gets foisted off as if it's a fucking virtue.

Gay men don't have a "penis fetish" and lesbians don't have a "vagina fetish". That's a disgustingly regressive view. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong in your head that you say that shit seriously?

Oh get off it.

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

And you can't even seem to take the two seconds to understand what was written: that being gay is not about penises and vaginas. It's about having an attraction to men.

And the vast majority of men who have attractions to men do not display this fetish.

Indeed, gay men don't necessarily have a penis fetish any more than many lesbians have vagina fetishes. What the fuck is wrong in your head that would would read what I wrote to assume that?

There is definitely some fairly significant comorbidity between being gay and having a penis fetish, but the whole point is that these are two different things.
.good to know you still can't tell the difference though.

 

[fromderinside]

So I've been to West LA. I like the shops there.

Do I need to read their news as well?

 

[Trausti]

Not everyone who is gay, in fact shockingly few who are gay, share the aversions and fetishes of this particular organizer. Hell, even if I did have a penis fetish (I merely have penis kink)

This is some incredible offensively homophobic bullshit. Referring to sexual orientation as a FETISH is fucking straight out of the days when psychologists considered homosexuality to be a sexual disorder and employed conversion therapy to "fix" it.

I'm not about to sit here and be silent while this insulting bigoted homophobic crap gets foisted off as if it's a fucking virtue.

Gay men don't have a "penis fetish" and lesbians don't have a "vagina fetish". That's a disgustingly regressive view. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong in your head that you say that shit seriously?

Oh get off it.

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

And you can't even seem to take the two seconds to understand what was written: that being gay is not about penises and vaginas. It's about having an attraction to men.

And the vast majority of men who have attractions to men do not display this fetish.

Indeed, gay men don't necessarily have a penis fetish any more than many lesbians have vagina fetishes. What the fuck is wrong in your head that would would read what I wrote to assume that?

There is definitely some fairly significant comorbidity between being gay and having a penis fetish, but the whole point is that these are two different things.
.good to know you still can't tell the difference though.

Human sexual dimorphism evolved for no reason whatsoever.

 

[TomC]

Here's something I am having trouble getting across in this thread.

I definitely want anti-discrimination laws concerning basic needs. Housing, health care, education, emergency services, policing, the environment, etc.

Frivolous stuff like campgrounds and cakes and sports, not so much.

It's not that I'm OK with irrational discrimination. I just don't want the government involved in the minutae. U.S. society has changed hugely since the 60s. We don't need the government involved in unimportant things, and I don't want them to have that much power. I do not trust them that much.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Here's something I am having trouble getting across in this thread.

I definitely want anti-discrimination laws concerning basic needs. Housing, health care, education, emergency services, policing, the environment, etc.

Frivolous stuff like campgrounds and cakes and sports, not so much.

It's not that I'm OK with irrational discrimination. I just don't want the government involved in the minutae. U.S. society has changed hugely since the 60s. We don't need the government involved in unimportant things, and I don't want them to have that much power. I do not trust them that much.
Tom

There is no government legislation against having an all-gay campground. And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.