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

[Emily Lake]

Most kinks and fetishes are not harmful, and thus aren't pathological. That, however, doesn't make them normal, and it doesn't support forcibly trying to normalize them.

And it absolutely does not in any way excuse this ridiculous attempt to cast exclusive sexual orientation as a fetish.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most kinks and fetishes are not harmful, and thus aren't pathological. That, however, doesn't make them normal, and it doesn't support forcibly trying to normalize them.

And it absolutely does not in any way excuse this ridiculous attempt to cast exclusive sexual orientation as a fetish.

So sayeth the perfect and eternal understanding of the Lake Clan!

You saying it's ridiculous doesn't make that true. It's a bald assertion.

In truth, I care for your hyperbole as much as I cared for the hyperbole about hair dragging.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most kinks and fetishes are not harmful, and thus aren't pathological. That, however, doesn't make them normal, and it doesn't support forcibly trying to normalize them.

And it absolutely does not in any way excuse this ridiculous attempt to cast exclusive sexual orientation as a fetish.

So sayeth the perfect and eternal understanding of the Lake Clan!

So sayeth basic critical thinking and mature reasoning skills.

You saying it's ridiculous doesn't make that true. It's a bald assertion.

No, it's an opinion. It's useful to understand the difference.

On the other hand... you saying that it's a "genital fetish" is also not true just because you say it, and is in contradiction to the entire meaning of the term fetish in the first place... as well as being incredibly insulting to both homosexual and heterosexual people.

It's a bigoted and degrading term that you're leveraging to support your completely non-scientific ideological dogma. You don't give a fuck how many people you trample while you try to force everyone else to bow to your desires.

 

[Jarhyn]

So sayeth basic critical thinking and mature reasoning skills.

You saying it's ridiculous doesn't make that true. It's a bald assertion.

No, it's an opinion. It's useful to understand the difference.

On the other hand... you saying that it's a "genital fetish" is also not true just because you say it, and is in contradiction to the entire meaning of the term fetish in the first place... as well as being incredibly insulting to both homosexual and heterosexual people.

It's a bigoted and degrading term that you're leveraging to support your completely non-scientific ideological dogma. You don't give a fuck how many people you trample while you try to force everyone else to bow to your desires.

Opinions can still be wrong, shitty, or otherwise ill-informed.

As has been discussed, it is a fact that "exclusive genital preference" is a sexual need. It is a fetish. You may not like it, but you are the one kink shaming and invoking hyperbolic language around how awful it is to cop to a fetish!

I don't give a fuck if I trample the bellachying of your very vocal minority. It's not trampling you, though. You are under nobody's feet. You just have to share a bathroom with women who you were, unfortunately, taught to hate.

 

[Metaphor]

As has been discussed, it is a fact that "exclusive genital preference" is a sexual need. It is a fetish.

It is nothing of the kind. It is, in fact, a direct contradiction of the meaning of 'fetish' to call it that. You should feel shame at being this wrong and then doubling down.

[h=1]fetish[/h][h=3]or fet·ich[/h][ fet-ish, fee-tish ]




an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.

Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

You may not like it, but you are the one kink shaming and invoking hyperbolic language around how awful it is to cop to a fetish!

Emily is doing nothing of the kind. She is pointing out your "Jarhyn universe" definition is wrong.

I don't give a fuck if I trample the bellachying of your very vocal minority. It's not trampling you, though. You are under nobody's feet. You just have to share a bathroom with women who you were, unfortunately, taught to hate.

No, Emily has to share a bathroom with men. I'm sure Emily doesn't hate men, she just doesn't want them in the bathroom with her.

 

[Emily Lake]

As has been discussed, it is a fact that "exclusive genital preference" is a sexual need. It is a fetish. You may not like it, but you are the one kink shaming and invoking hyperbolic language around how awful it is to cop to a fetish!

Bullshit. It hasn't been established in any way at all. You're completely inventing crap and just making up your own definitions as you go. It's idiotic in the extreme. It's not a fetish, it is the very basic definition of sexuality.

And I'm not "kinkshaming" at all. I don't give a fuck what your kinks are. As long as they're consenting, fly your kink flag as high as you want.

On the other hand... denigrating people for having a fixed sexual orientation as "bigots" and "transphobes" and "fetishists" is 100% you trying to shame people for their fucking sexual orientation. it's coercive and it's abusive.

Trying to shame people into accepting sex with people who have genitals that they are not attracted to is, in my opinion, completely fucked up, perverse, and borders on being rapey. The "butch lesbian transwomen" out there who are harassing and demeaning lesbians because lesbians don't want to have sex with their dicks are bad people who are trying to shame and guilt women into having sex against their will. The transmen throwing a fit because gay men don't want to fuck their "front hole" and calling them bigots with "penis fetishes" are fucking twisted motherfuckers trying to coerce gay men into having straight sex for fear of public censure.

It's regressive as all hell. The fact that you can't see that, the fact that you fucking condone that? That's some fucked up shit right there.

Do whatever the hell you like with consenting adults. But do not fucking shame or denigrate people for liking something else. Do not fucking apply derogatory labels to people who don't want to engage in your kinks. For fuck's sake, don't call exclusively homosexual or heterosexual people "fetishists". That - that is literally shaming, and you're shaming for a not-kink.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, Emily has to share a bathroom with men. I'm sure Emily doesn't hate men, she just doesn't want them in the bathroom with her.

When it comes to bathrooms, I generally don't care as long as nobody is crass enough to make a mess.

I don't want penises in my locker rooms, showers, or other places where I am naked around strangers. I don't care how the person attached to that penis identifies. I don't consent to allowing people with penises (other than my spouse) to view me naked - and I think that my boundaries should be respected. I don't consent to viewing people with penises (other than my spouse) naked - and I think my boundaries should be respected.

I am very strongly opposed to any situation that places the *feelings* of some people above the sexual boundaries of others. I *especially* object when it is the feelings of male-bodied people being placed above the sexual boundaries of female humans, because on the whole female humans are weaker and smaller, and we already get sexually assaulted, abused, and raped at astonishing rates. Not all males harm females... but the people who harm females are almost always male.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, Emily has to share a bathroom with men. I'm sure Emily doesn't hate men, she just doesn't want them in the bathroom with her.

When it comes to bathrooms, I generally don't care as long as nobody is crass enough to make a mess.

I don't want penises in my locker rooms, showers, or other places where I am naked around strangers. I don't care how the person attached to that penis identifies. I don't consent to allowing people with penises (other than my spouse) to view me naked - and I think that my boundaries should be respected. I don't consent to viewing people with penises (other than my spouse) naked - and I think my boundaries should be respected.

I am very strongly opposed to any situation that places the *feelings* of some people above the sexual boundaries of others. I *especially* object when it is the feelings of male-bodied people being placed above the sexual boundaries of female humans, because on the whole female humans are weaker and smaller, and we already get sexually assaulted, abused, and raped at astonishing rates. Not all males harm females... but the people who harm females are almost always male.

I will place the fact that they don't want to be forced to shower in the place where they are the "chick with a dick, woohoo!" Above your "ew, it's a penis" any day. Sorry.

 

[Jarhyn]

As has been discussed, it is a fact that "exclusive genital preference" is a sexual need. It is a fetish. You may not like it, but you are the one kink shaming and invoking hyperbolic language around how awful it is to cop to a fetish!

Bullshit. It hasn't been established in any way at all. You're completely inventing crap and just making up your own definitions as you go. It's idiotic in the extreme. It's not a fetish, it is the very basic definition of sexuality.

And I'm not "kinkshaming" at all. I don't give a fuck what your kinks are. As long as they're consenting, fly your kink flag as high as you want.

On the other hand... denigrating people for having a fixed sexual orientation as "bigots" and "transphobes" and "fetishists" is 100% you trying to shame people for their fucking sexual orientation. it's coercive and it's abusive.

Trying to shame people into accepting sex with people who have genitals that they are not attracted to is, in my opinion, completely fucked up, perverse, and borders on being rapey. The "butch lesbian transwomen" out there who are harassing and demeaning lesbians because lesbians don't want to have sex with their dicks are bad people who are trying to shame and guilt women into having sex against their will. The transmen throwing a fit because gay men don't want to fuck their "front hole" and calling them bigots with "penis fetishes" are fucking twisted motherfuckers trying to coerce gay men into having straight sex for fear of public censure.

It's regressive as all hell. The fact that you can't see that, the fact that you fucking condone that? That's some fucked up shit right there.

Do whatever the hell you like with consenting adults. But do not fucking shame or denigrate people for liking something else. Do not fucking apply derogatory labels to people who don't want to engage in your kinks. For fuck's sake, don't call exclusively homosexual or heterosexual people "fetishists". That - that is literally shaming, and you're shaming for a not-kink.

"Shaming". You're the only one here invoking shame on it.

You are the one defining homosexuality at a homosexual. You are the one defining what is a man to someone who is not cis. You are ridiculous in your wrongness.

 

[Trausti]

How is the sexual orientation necessary for procreation a fetish?

 

[Metaphor]

As has been discussed, it is a fact that "exclusive genital preference" is a sexual need. It is a fetish. You may not like it, but you are the one kink shaming and invoking hyperbolic language around how awful it is to cop to a fetish!

Bullshit. It hasn't been established in any way at all. You're completely inventing crap and just making up your own definitions as you go. It's idiotic in the extreme. It's not a fetish, it is the very basic definition of sexuality.

And I'm not "kinkshaming" at all. I don't give a fuck what your kinks are. As long as they're consenting, fly your kink flag as high as you want.

On the other hand... denigrating people for having a fixed sexual orientation as "bigots" and "transphobes" and "fetishists" is 100% you trying to shame people for their fucking sexual orientation. it's coercive and it's abusive.

Trying to shame people into accepting sex with people who have genitals that they are not attracted to is, in my opinion, completely fucked up, perverse, and borders on being rapey. The "butch lesbian transwomen" out there who are harassing and demeaning lesbians because lesbians don't want to have sex with their dicks are bad people who are trying to shame and guilt women into having sex against their will. The transmen throwing a fit because gay men don't want to fuck their "front hole" and calling them bigots with "penis fetishes" are fucking twisted motherfuckers trying to coerce gay men into having straight sex for fear of public censure.

It's regressive as all hell. The fact that you can't see that, the fact that you fucking condone that? That's some fucked up shit right there.

Do whatever the hell you like with consenting adults. But do not fucking shame or denigrate people for liking something else. Do not fucking apply derogatory labels to people who don't want to engage in your kinks. For fuck's sake, don't call exclusively homosexual or heterosexual people "fetishists". That - that is literally shaming, and you're shaming for a not-kink.

"Shaming". You're the only one here invoking shame on it.

You are the one defining homosexuality at a homosexual. You are the one defining what is a man to someone who is not cis. You are ridiculous in your wrongness.

You don't get to define the meaning of 'homosexuality', or the meaning of any other word. Sorry luv.

 

[crazyfingers]

Ok I'm outa here. This thread is too confusing.

 

[Terrell]

Not buying the idea that liking vaginas & only vaginas, in terms of a partner's genitals is a fetish. It isn't. Now if one likes particular other parts of a woman's body, that might, or might not be a fetish. Feet are pretty much seen as a fetish. Would wanting to kiss your girlfriend's shoulders be a fetish? Even if doing so isn't required to get off? What about any other part of her body, that you especially like, if you can get off without it, but would much rather her be okay with your access to it?

 

[none]

Not buying the idea that liking vaginas & only vaginas, in terms of a partner's genitals is a fetish. It isn't. Now if one likes particular other parts of a woman's body, that might, or might not be a fetish. Feet are pretty much seen as a fetish. Would wanting to kiss your girlfriend's shoulders be a fetish? Even if doing so isn't required to get off? What about any other part of her body, that you especially like, if you can get off without it, but would much rather her be okay with your access to it?

what happens when she makes you jack off?

 

[DrZoidberg]

While it's near-impossible to find neutral reporting in the lgbT press, the advocate summarised some events here:

Gay Michigan Campground Bans Trans Men (advocate.com)



Predictably, discriminating based on sex is cast as the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for a large portion of the progressive left, but discriminating based on gender identity is somehow....not "bigotry".

The gay press lost its mind at the thought that there are gay men attracted to males and wanting to set up an exclusive male-only space.

Hornet said (emphasis mine):
Not Even Open Yet, This Gay Campground Has Been Slammed for Petty Transphobia | Hornet, the Gay Social Network

Pridesource evidently thinks a male-only space is 'anti-trans' (one wonders why they don't think a mens-only space is anti-woman)
Anti-Trans Michigan Camp Boomerang Removed From Gay Camp Association, Campit Features Trans Week - Pride Source

Camp Boomerang will be the fourth gay campground to open up in Michigan — along with CreekRidge, Campit Resort Saugatuck, and The Windover Women’s Resort. CreekRidge, although outwardly welcoming of transmen, requires “that their identification is that of a male due to being an all-male campground.” Because — you know — nothing is more gender-confirming than a stamp of approval from the state.


In contrast, at Campit there are no such ridiculous requirements, and the campground is open to cis and trans men and women.


It is high time the LGBTQ community at large takes a stand against these so-called queer establishments with their unconscionable policies. The messages of disgust on Facebook are a good start to what will hopefully become a full-on boycott of Camp Boomerang.

The campsite, which is not open yet, has already been review-bombed on Google with 1-star reviews.

Now, I'd like to ask a question: why is it morally okay to exclude women from something (as transactivists define women--that is, any 'cis' biological female and any trans-identified biological male), but it is not morally okay to exclude females from something?

Hmm... do I support gay rights or trans rights. Will I chose being evil because I reject the rights of gays to have a gay safe space or will I chose being evil for marginalizing transexuals. Choices, choices. I chose evil. It's the only morally right thing to do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not buying the idea that liking vaginas & only vaginas, in terms of a partner's genitals is a fetish. It isn't. Now if one likes particular other parts of a woman's body, that might, or might not be a fetish. Feet are pretty much seen as a fetish. Would wanting to kiss your girlfriend's shoulders be a fetish? Even if doing so isn't required to get off? What about any other part of her body, that you especially like, if you can get off without it, but would much rather her be okay with your access to it?

I think you misunderstand the idea of this place. If gays go to a camp site not primarily for cruising, then why bother going to a gay camp site? If all they want is a nature experience then why not go to the one most convenient for them? Obviously this is about sex, and if they are gay, they don't like vaginas. Does a gay man really need to justify and defend not having to put up with vaginas around them? Haven't we become more progressive than that?

 

[Metaphor]

Not buying the idea that liking vaginas & only vaginas, in terms of a partner's genitals is a fetish. It isn't. Now if one likes particular other parts of a woman's body, that might, or might not be a fetish. Feet are pretty much seen as a fetish. Would wanting to kiss your girlfriend's shoulders be a fetish? Even if doing so isn't required to get off? What about any other part of her body, that you especially like, if you can get off without it, but would much rather her be okay with your access to it?

I think you misunderstand the idea of this place. If gays go to a camp site not primarily for cruising, then why bother going to a gay camp site? If all they want is a nature experience then why not go to the one most convenient for them? Obviously this is about sex, and if they are gay, they don't like vaginas. Does a gay man really need to justify and defend not having to put up with vaginas around them? Haven't we become more progressive than that?

Trans ideologists have not become 'more progressive' than that.

 

[Jarhyn]

While it's near-impossible to find neutral reporting in the lgbT press, the advocate summarised some events here:

Gay Michigan Campground Bans Trans Men (advocate.com)



Predictably, discriminating based on sex is cast as the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for a large portion of the progressive left, but discriminating based on gender identity is somehow....not "bigotry".

The gay press lost its mind at the thought that there are gay men attracted to males and wanting to set up an exclusive male-only space.

Hornet said (emphasis mine):
Not Even Open Yet, This Gay Campground Has Been Slammed for Petty Transphobia | Hornet, the Gay Social Network

Pridesource evidently thinks a male-only space is 'anti-trans' (one wonders why they don't think a mens-only space is anti-woman)
Anti-Trans Michigan Camp Boomerang Removed From Gay Camp Association, Campit Features Trans Week - Pride Source

Camp Boomerang will be the fourth gay campground to open up in Michigan — along with CreekRidge, Campit Resort Saugatuck, and The Windover Women’s Resort. CreekRidge, although outwardly welcoming of transmen, requires “that their identification is that of a male due to being an all-male campground.” Because — you know — nothing is more gender-confirming than a stamp of approval from the state.


In contrast, at Campit there are no such ridiculous requirements, and the campground is open to cis and trans men and women.


It is high time the LGBTQ community at large takes a stand against these so-called queer establishments with their unconscionable policies. The messages of disgust on Facebook are a good start to what will hopefully become a full-on boycott of Camp Boomerang.

The campsite, which is not open yet, has already been review-bombed on Google with 1-star reviews.

Now, I'd like to ask a question: why is it morally okay to exclude women from something (as transactivists define women--that is, any 'cis' biological female and any trans-identified biological male), but it is not morally okay to exclude females from something?

Hmm... do I support gay rights or trans rights. Will I chose being evil because I reject the rights of gays to have a gay safe space or will I chose being evil for marginalizing transexuals. Choices, choices. I chose evil. It's the only morally right thing to do.

Ask yourself, does including -- and let's be realistic here -- between 0 and 2 people with masculine bodies and vaginas, make the space less "safe", considering that the men who have them are probably going to wear some.manner of undies over then even still?

What we are talking about catering to an uncommon need (to see exactly zero vaginas) which trans people are unlikely in the first place to violate(or even be in a position to do so) and are capable of avoiding the violation thereof, by banning trans people from the campgrounds.

Now, the reason for this moral divide is that they are making a campground to facilitate an orgy, or at least orgiastic behavior. "For a proper orgy, all participants must be cool with all other participants", similar to religious services in a way (for a successful service, all people involved with bringing that service likewise must at the very least not be belligerent to that religion). It is therefore one of the situations where you could actually satisfy both groups, especially seeing as you run a whole campground for an entire summer. You could have weekends or even just days where you call the campground out for niche groups. You could "second weekend of July is Swinging Richards weekend, a special weekend event for those of us who just need that dick! Cum on over for Size Queen Saturday, where we're encouraging everyone to roll out the big guns*!"

Like, the thing that really gets me here is that the proprietor had so many ways of solving this that did not involve Trans Exclusion and went full exclusionary instead.


*Penises; weapons are not allowed or whatever. As this event is for encouraging and catering to sexual need, this event is offered exclusively to those with a penile genital fixation and so having a penis is required for this particular event.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not buying the idea that liking vaginas & only vaginas, in terms of a partner's genitals is a fetish. It isn't. Now if one likes particular other parts of a woman's body, that might, or might not be a fetish. Feet are pretty much seen as a fetish. Would wanting to kiss your girlfriend's shoulders be a fetish? Even if doing so isn't required to get off? What about any other part of her body, that you especially like, if you can get off without it, but would much rather her be okay with your access to it?

I think you misunderstand the idea of this place. If gays go to a camp site not primarily for cruising, then why bother going to a gay camp site? If all they want is a nature experience then why not go to the one most convenient for them? Obviously this is about sex, and if they are gay, they don't like vaginas. Does a gay man really need to justify and defend not having to put up with vaginas around them? Haven't we become more progressive than that?

Trans ideologists have not become 'more progressive' than that.

I maintain that the problem here isn't the transexuals or the trans community. I am convinved that the problem here is their gay and CIS "allies" falling over themselves to come across as the most woke and good. It's a competition of who looks the most woke online. Since it's an instant global online one-upmanship they're under intense pressure to find whatever scrap they can to get attention for their personal crusade against "evil". So we get this dumb shit. It's just progressive word salad. We've reached a point where they're simply stacking "good" words onto each other and slamming each other for using the latest bad words. Without any thought about whether it makes sense or not.

The pink press face the same difficulty in getting advertising revenue as any news site. Competition is fierce. In order to stick out they have to get increasingly extreme.

These people stopped being reasonable a long time ago. I don't actually think they have a coherent vision of what future they want anymore. Their vision is less than clear. I don't even want to call them trans activists. I don't think they are. While they babble on about trans rights I don't actually think they give a damn about what transexuals think about anything. That boat left the harbour a long time ago.

Today I was listening to a podcast by atheist ex-Muslims and invited a feminist Muslim black activist talking about race and structural oppression. Occasionally she made sense. But most of the time, it was the same dumb woke word salad we get from these trans rights activists.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you misunderstand... Obviously this is about sex, and if they are gay, they don't like vaginas. Does a gay man really need to justify and defend not having to put up with vaginas around them?

Quit telling gay people what gay people want. You don't speak for me. You don't speak for a lot of gay people.

How do you not understand that the number one consumer of intersexed and transmasc porn is gay men?

Gay is not, for must of us, about getting the dick nor avoiding the vagina.

At home? Gay men need to do nothing to justify anything. At a campground surrounded by diverse peers who have friends whose masculine bodies include vaginas, for which they would have a better time we're those friends present? Yeah, they should have to justify that exclusion, or limit it to specific times cut out to their specific, exclusionary need.

Would you like me to put out survey among my community in Minneapolis? Would you like the breakdown of how many people need to see zero vaginas for fulfilling sex among those who "are gay"?

My hypothesis: 100% of them have no problem with seeing masculine bodies with vaginas on them, even in the context of a gay orgy. In fact my peer group has a couple of trans men in it, and they've never spoiled any of the orgies they have shown up to.

Were I to branch out further in the community, I'm sure I would see even those rare individuals who need zero vaginas to be present nor visible would pretty exclusively be between the ages of "18" and 22, and the ones that were like that would be exactly the sort of people that everyone avoids inviting in the first place.

So what we have here is a campground excluding people explicitly so as to satisfy a very vocal minority 100% of the time over giving them a cut-out more appropriate to their proportion of the community.