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

[J842P]

Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.

That's ironic. It's hard to think what a historically literate Jew might think of the black person's plight, being the Jews were enslaved for THOUSANDS of years prior to Moses leading them away (and then for 5 years again around WWII by the Germans)... and black people were enslaved by other black people in Africa also for THOUSANDS of years... and America was one of their newest and last customers... for 400 years. I guess Jews had more time to get over it, so to speak? And black people hate Africa way more than America, for starting and continuing it, right?

Perhaps not really relevant, but the Jews were never actually enslaved by the Egyptians. Of course, that is part of Jewish myth. Moses likely never existed, and the Jews never spent a time wandering the desert.

 

[TomC]

Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.

That's ironic. It's hard to think what a historically literate Jew might think of the black person's plight, being the Jews were enslaved for THOUSANDS of years prior to Moses leading them away (and then for 5 years again around WWII by the Germans)... and black people were enslaved by other black people in Africa also for THOUSANDS of years... and America was one of their newest and last customers... for 400 years. I guess Jews had more time to get over it, so to speak? And black people hate Africa way more than America, for starting and continuing it, right?

Perhaps not really relevant, but the Jews were never actually enslaved by the Egyptians. Of course, that is part of Jewish myth. Moses likely never existed, and the Jews never spent a time wandering the desert.

It's more relevant than the bizarrely illiterate post you quoted was.

Even Jews don't believe that.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Gospa moja Loren, getting sexually aroused by an 'attractive male appearing body' or an 'attractive female appearing body' is not a fetish. Good fucking lord.

We are using the term in the psychological context where it means something required for sexual arousal, not in the common-use context of very deviant sexual behavior.

This is beyond absurd. Your interpretation here, which you insist is correct, implies that well over 99% of the entire human species has a "genital fetish". And in the psychological context, a fetish is a requirement for a NON-GENITAL item for arousal. Being aroused by genitals is, by they psychological definition, NOT a fetish.

Fucking hell. What planet are we on where sexual orientation - the actual fucking sex of the people that you're attracted to - is now a "fetish". This is fucked up.

Although, I have to admit being a but impressed that someone has managed to be both homophobic AND heterophobic simultaneously. That's some grade-A magical thinking right there.

 

[Emily Lake]

He's calling the carve-out for genitals a special pleading (and I agree with him), but note that he didn't say "penis fetish", he said "penis kink", the definition of fetish is irrelevant to that. And the carve-out is for genitals, not overall appearance--it has no bearing on this issue.

Yeah, like I would have a lot more latitude to accept the existence of this camping trip free of criticism were they to stop trying to represent "gay men" with their exclusionary behavior and instead reduced their expression of representation to express their collective cock fetishes in addition to their call-out for gay men.

Now if it's a public event, though, then that only extends so far as branding; at that point they would have to accept all comers (cummers?)

I seriously cannot get over how incredibly homophobic and offensive this is.

You are defining gay men to be sexual deviants. It's so incredibly regressive I don't even know where to start. It's actually disgusting.

 

[Emily Lake]

Agreed. I would lose attraction to a woman, that I'd formerly found attractive, as soon as I found out she didn't have a vagina.

Seconded. I'm pure straight--you don't have the right plumbing, I have no sexual interest. Doesn't mean you aren't a good person, just not a potential bedmate.

And do you think that means that you're a "vagina fetishist"?

Which, by the way, makes you a transphobe too. Just in case you hadn't gotten that memo. Because people with "genital fetishes" are transphobic.

 

[Jarhyn]

He's calling the carve-out for genitals a special pleading (and I agree with him), but note that he didn't say "penis fetish", he said "penis kink", the definition of fetish is irrelevant to that. And the carve-out is for genitals, not overall appearance--it has no bearing on this issue.

Yeah, like I would have a lot more latitude to accept the existence of this camping trip free of criticism were they to stop trying to represent "gay men" with their exclusionary behavior and instead reduced their expression of representation to express their collective cock fetishes in addition to their call-out for gay men.

Now if it's a public event, though, then that only extends so far as branding; at that point they would have to accept all comers (cummers?)

I seriously cannot get over how incredibly homophobic and offensive this is.

You are defining gay men to be sexual deviants. It's so incredibly regressive I don't even know where to start. It's actually disgusting.

So now it's "sexual deviancy (negative connotation)" to have a simple fetish. Quit painting having fetishes as "deviant".

Take your Gaslighting and shove it. I paint homosexuals as diverse people, some with penis fetishes, some without, neither of any negative bendt - excepting those who would exclude men without penises from the tent of "acceptable gay".

You are the one in here invoking "disgusting", "deviant", and "homophobic".

You are the one defining everyone with a fetish as deviant.

Check yourself

 

[TomC]

I seriously cannot get over how incredibly homophobic and offensive this is.

There's a reason why, overall, I don't care for LBGTQ people as a group.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. I would lose attraction to a woman, that I'd formerly found attractive, as soon as I found out she didn't have a vagina.

Seconded. I'm pure straight--you don't have the right plumbing, I have no sexual interest. Doesn't mean you aren't a good person, just not a potential bedmate.

And do you think that means that you're a "vagina fetishist"?

1) The definition excludes genitals.

2) By the definition already presented, I agree. So what?

Which, by the way, makes you a transphobe too. Just in case you hadn't gotten that memo. Because people with "genital fetishes" are transphobic.

Nope--I have no problem with a trans person outside the bedroom, I just don't want them in my bedroom. Sexual attraction or lack thereof isn't a phobia in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are the one in here invoking "disgusting", "deviant", and "homophobic".

You are the one defining everyone with a fetish as deviant.

Check yourself

And note that "deviant" is commonly used in a negative sense but it doesn't actually require the act be negative, only that it be outside the norm. All scientific Nobel prize winners are deviants--far outside the norm of normal human scientific ability. Conformity isn't automatically the best path.

 

[Jarhyn]

And do you think that means that you're a "vagina fetishist"?

1) The definition excludes genitals.

2) By the definition already presented, I agree. So what?

Which, by the way, makes you a transphobe too. Just in case you hadn't gotten that memo. Because people with "genital fetishes" are transphobic.

Nope--I have no problem with a trans person outside the bedroom, I just don't want them in my bedroom. Sexual attraction or lack thereof isn't a phobia in the first place.

Exactly. Like, I don't mind vaginas in my bedroom either. But I'm still gay. Which is the point I've been trying to make. It's ok to have fetishes, kinks, and so on!

The only sex I find appropriate to describe as "deviant" though, is any behavior lacking clear consent.

If that consent just involves exchanging the fact of what their safe words/actions are, that's still not deviant in my books.

 

[Emily Lake]

I seriously cannot get over how incredibly homophobic and offensive this is.

You are defining gay men to be sexual deviants. It's so incredibly regressive I don't even know where to start. It's actually disgusting.

So now it's "sexual deviancy (negative connotation)" to have a simple fetish. Quit painting having fetishes as "deviant".

Take your Gaslighting and shove it. I paint homosexuals as diverse people, some with penis fetishes, some without, neither of any negative bendt - excepting those who would exclude men without penises from the tent of "acceptable gay".

You are the one in here invoking "disgusting", "deviant", and "homophobic".

You are the one defining everyone with a fetish as deviant.

Check yourself

Fucking hell. From the perspective of psychology, fetishes ARE sexual deviances. They are abnormal sexual response patterns.

Your brainless insistence that people who are exclusively attracted to people who possess one set of genitals, and are exclusively not sexually attracted to people with the opposing set of genitals as having "genital preferences" is the disgusting and completely homophobic bit.

 

[Trausti]

It is myth that sexual dimorphism evolved to increase sexual reproduction and species procreation. Apparently.

 

[Politesse]

I seriously cannot get over how incredibly homophobic and offensive this is.

You are defining gay men to be sexual deviants. It's so incredibly regressive I don't even know where to start. It's actually disgusting.

So now it's "sexual deviancy (negative connotation)" to have a simple fetish. Quit painting having fetishes as "deviant".

Take your Gaslighting and shove it. I paint homosexuals as diverse people, some with penis fetishes, some without, neither of any negative bendt - excepting those who would exclude men without penises from the tent of "acceptable gay".

You are the one in here invoking "disgusting", "deviant", and "homophobic".

You are the one defining everyone with a fetish as deviant.

Check yourself

Fucking hell. From the perspective of psychology, fetishes ARE sexual deviances. They are abnormal sexual response patterns.

Your brainless insistence that people who are exclusively attracted to people who possess one set of genitals, and are exclusively not sexually attracted to people with the opposing set of genitals as having "genital preferences" is the disgusting and completely homophobic bit.

The hell? What modern professional psychologist would refer to any sexual behavior as "deviance", let alone something as nearly universal as fetishization?

 

[Jarhyn]

Fucking hell. From the perspective of psychology, fetishes ARE sexual deviances. They are abnormal sexual response patterns.

Your brainless insistence that people who are exclusively attracted to people who possess one set of genitals, and are exclusively not sexually attracted to people with the opposing set of genitals as having "genital preferences" is the disgusting and completely homophobic bit.

The hell? What modern professional psychologist would refer to any sexual behavior as "deviance", let alone something as nearly universal as fetishization?

People from whatever prior century that Emily Lake's infinite and perfect familial understanding of all things arose from, I imagine.

The insistence that the discussion of genital preference is separate from attraction specifically to secondary aspects that get someone going long before the pants come off is somehow offensive of phobic is laughable.

Just like it's no less straight to like some Futanari, or ladies who happen to have penises (separate categories, but related). You are trying to tell me I'm somehow not gay, or offensively gay, for recognizing the distinction that some gay people have genital preference, some have genital fetishes, and some don't, and they're all perfectly fine people.

Some straight people have genital fetishes too, and some have preferences, and some don't have any care. It's not straight phobic to recognize it!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Like, I don't mind vaginas in my bedroom either. But I'm still gay. Which is the point I've been trying to make. It's ok to have fetishes, kinks, and so on!

Seconded. I also believe such things are hardwired, not something under our control. You can choose not to act on them if it's problematic, but so long as it can be addressed safely, go ahead.

The only sex I find appropriate to describe as "deviant" though, is any behavior lacking clear consent.

If that consent just involves exchanging the fact of what their safe words/actions are, that's still not deviant in my books.

That's not deviant, that's criminal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Exactly. Like, I don't mind vaginas in my bedroom either. But I'm still gay. Which is the point I've been trying to make. It's ok to have fetishes, kinks, and so on!

Seconded. I also believe such things are hardwired, not something under our control. You can choose not to act on them if it's problematic, but so long as it can be addressed safely, go ahead.

The only sex I find appropriate to describe as "deviant" though, is any behavior lacking clear consent.

If that consent just involves exchanging the fact of what their safe words/actions are, that's still not deviant in my books.

That's not deviant, that's criminal.

Criminal, and also deviant: it invokes criminal sexuality.

 

[crazyfingers]

I'm reminded that more people need to be like my grandmother. She was born in 1904 and lived to be over 100. A very religious Methodist but never pushed it on anyone.

In the mid 1980's the family learned that one of my cousins is gay and there was some grumbling by some.

My grandmother squashed it flat. She announced to her children and grand children that my cousin was gay because it's natural for him to be gay and anyone making any more grumbling would answer to her!!

She was amazing.

 

[TomC]

I'm reminded that more people need to be like my grandmother. She was born in 1904 and lived to be over 100. A very religious Methodist but never pushed it on anyone.

In the mid 1980's the family learned that one of my cousins is gay and there was some grumbling by some.

My grandmother squashed it flat. She announced to her children and grand children that my cousin was gay because it's natural for him to be gay and anyone making any more grumbling would answer to her!!

She was amazing.

That would have been my mom.
When I came out, she was the matriarch who flat out said "He's still my son."

When my sister invited me to her teenage son's family birthday party she told me not to bring my partner. "Because there'll be kids here".
I told her that if my partner wasn't invited I wouldn't be there either. And I'd call mom and tell her exactly why I wasn't coming. She backed down immediately. "Nevermind!"
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Fucking hell. From the perspective of psychology, fetishes ARE sexual deviances. They are abnormal sexual response patterns.

Your brainless insistence that people who are exclusively attracted to people who possess one set of genitals, and are exclusively not sexually attracted to people with the opposing set of genitals as having "genital preferences" is the disgusting and completely homophobic bit.

The hell? What modern professional psychologist would refer to any sexual behavior as "deviance", let alone something as nearly universal as fetishization?

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/4505/

Psychologists generally refer to non-traditional sexual behaviour as sexual deviation or, in cases where the specific object of arousal is unusual, as paraphilia.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15308447/

Individuals who engage in sexual offenses may be afflicted with a paraphilic disorder or sexual deviation syndrome. Paraphilias are psychiatric disorders characterized by deviant and culturally non-sanctioned sexual fantasies, thoughts, and/or behaviors.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125241960500206

This chapter discusses sexual deviance among adults and the role of forensic psychology in relation to this deviant behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fucking hell. From the perspective of psychology, fetishes ARE sexual deviances. They are abnormal sexual response patterns.

Your brainless insistence that people who are exclusively attracted to people who possess one set of genitals, and are exclusively not sexually attracted to people with the opposing set of genitals as having "genital preferences" is the disgusting and completely homophobic bit.

The hell? What modern professional psychologist would refer to any sexual behavior as "deviance", let alone something as nearly universal as fetishization?

People from whatever prior century that Emily Lake's infinite and perfect familial understanding of all things arose from, I imagine.

The insistence that the discussion of genital preference is separate from attraction specifically to secondary aspects that get someone going long before the pants come off is somehow offensive of phobic is laughable.

Just like it's no less straight to like some Futanari, or ladies who happen to have penises (separate categories, but related). You are trying to tell me I'm somehow not gay, or offensively gay, for recognizing the distinction that some gay people have genital preference, some have genital fetishes, and some don't, and they're all perfectly fine people.

Some straight people have genital fetishes too, and some have preferences, and some don't have any care. It's not straight phobic to recognize it!

You are completely redefining the entire concept of sexual orientation in order to support your ideology. It's offensive and regressive.