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

[DrZoidberg]

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*!"
*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.

If people are going to have clothes on then what does it matter for transexuals if they go to a gay camping or not? So that argument doesn't work, does it? I'm not saying it's a good argument. But that's the argument you used. See how silly it sounds?

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.

I think the proprietor was going out of his way to offend people. I think it smells of an attempt to get publicity.

Gay exclusion in these kinds of places is common. Whether it's age, hotness, muscle marys, chemsex, no chemsex, black people, Asians, hairy, not hairy, bears, no bears, dick size, etc etc. Excluding transexuals is just one more in the common long long list.

Yeah, it sucks that trans people aren't welcome there. They have my sympathies. But I'm actually cool with gays excluding people on whatever dimensions they wish. I've been to loads of these types of parties. I prefer it when the organizer is upfront with if I'm welcome or not. It always sucks to be somewhere I'm not welcome. The sooner I'm informed the better.

And it's not like there's a shortage of trans parties. I don't know the situation where you live. But all over Western and Northern Europe you don't need to make much of an effort to find a party where transexuals are more than welcome. Why not go to one of them?

 

[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?

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?

Yeah, I know they're looking for sex with one another. I mentioned it in post #20. Even that they aren't likely to be interested in vaginas. I'm arguing against the idea that liking a specific set of genitals, to the exclusion of the other set, is a fetish.

 

[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?

Yeah, I know they're looking for sex with one another. I mentioned it in post #20. Even that they aren't likely to be interested in vaginas. I'm arguing against the idea that liking a specific set of genitals, to the exclusion of the other set, is a fetish.

It doesn't matter if it's a fetish or not. People should be allowed to be into whatever they're into. I'm a big fan of not forcing anyone's sexuality onto anyone else. Once upon a time when it was hard for transexuals and gays to be welcome at any party, and the cops systematically raided gay places, then yes, I'd be on their side. But now... I'm aware that there are plenty of places in USA were it sucks to be gay. But you can move. You can move to a place where it doesn't suck to be gay. There's today, no need to get up in arms about enforcing gay acceptance and that everybody has to be cool about penises and vaginas.

I'm not saying that homophobia still isn't a thing. I'm just saying that the battle against homophobia is harder now. The targets to attack require more subtle approaches than just slamming people for using the wrong words.

 

[Terrell]

Yeah, I know they're looking for sex with one another. I mentioned it in post #20. Even that they aren't likely to be interested in vaginas. I'm arguing against the idea that liking a specific set of genitals, to the exclusion of the other set, is a fetish.

It doesn't matter if it's a fetish or not. People should be allowed to be into whatever they're into. I'm a big fan of not forcing anyone's sexuality onto anyone else. Once upon a time when it was hard for transexuals and gays to be welcome at any party, and the cops systematically raided gay places, then yes, I'd be on their side. But now... I'm aware that there are plenty of places in USA were it sucks to be gay. But you can move. You can move to a place where it doesn't suck to be gay. There's today, no need to get up in arms about enforcing gay acceptance and that everybody has to be cool about penises and vaginas.

I'm not saying that homophobia still isn't a thing. I'm just saying that the battle against homophobia is harder now. The targets to attack require more subtle approaches than just slamming people for using the wrong words.

We're on the same side here. I think people have the right to accept or reject anyone sexually for any reason, or even no reason at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yeah, I know they're looking for sex with one another. I mentioned it in post #20. Even that they aren't likely to be interested in vaginas. I'm arguing against the idea that liking a specific set of genitals, to the exclusion of the other set, is a fetish.

It doesn't matter if it's a fetish or not. People should be allowed to be into whatever they're into. I'm a big fan of not forcing anyone's sexuality onto anyone else. Once upon a time when it was hard for transexuals and gays to be welcome at any party, and the cops systematically raided gay places, then yes, I'd be on their side. But now... I'm aware that there are plenty of places in USA were it sucks to be gay. But you can move. You can move to a place where it doesn't suck to be gay. There's today, no need to get up in arms about enforcing gay acceptance and that everybody has to be cool about penises and vaginas.

I'm not saying that homophobia still isn't a thing. I'm just saying that the battle against homophobia is harder now. The targets to attack require more subtle approaches than just slamming people for using the wrong words.

We're on the same side here. I think people have the right to accept or reject anyone sexually for any reason, or even no reason at all.

Amen brother/sister/non-binary/fluid/pansexual... or she.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why? What's your rationale for that?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

No, the *thing* that gets you is an unexamined and automatic hatred of people voluntarily affiliating themselves. You now would have us believe that if the penis requirement was for a 'themed' night it would be morally okay, but to have it as a permanent fixture is instead morally wrong. Your philosophy is incoherent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If they aren't harmful and are practiced in private why should society care?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So it's fine to mandate you wear a burka to prevent your feelings from intruding on the sexual boundaries of Muslim men?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Like but not required = kink, not fetish.

 

[Metaphor]

I think the proprietor was going out of his way to offend people. I think it smells of an attempt to get publicity.

I don't think he was. I think the proprietor had a preference and saying 'men only', given the interpretation that 'men' has (that is, including trans-identified biological females), he had to clarify it was biological males with penises only.

Gay exclusion in these kinds of places is common. Whether it's age, hotness, muscle marys, chemsex, no chemsex, black people, Asians, hairy, not hairy, bears, no bears, dick size, etc etc. Excluding transexuals is just one more in the common long long list.

Yeah, it sucks that trans people aren't welcome there. They have my sympathies. But I'm actually cool with gays excluding people on whatever dimensions they wish. I've been to loads of these types of parties. I prefer it when the organizer is upfront with if I'm welcome or not. It always sucks to be somewhere I'm not welcome. The sooner I'm informed the better.

Before Grindr went Woke, it was somewhat common to see things like 'no fatties, no femmes, no Asians' (or whatever) on profiles. Of course, you also saw 'Black and Latino to the front of the line'.

It's better to know if you're welcome or not. Better for everyone.

 

[Emily Lake]

"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.

This is personal, so of course you're welcome to disengage at any point.

You've said previously that your partner is male, and is trans - from this I infer that your partner presents as a woman.
You've indicated that you are male.
You've said that you are "not cis", but you haven't said that you are trans.
You've argued that sexual attraction to only people with a particular type of genitals is a fetish.
You've indicated that people 'ought to' be attracted to how people present, regardless of what genitals they have, otherwise they're bigots and fetishists.
You've claimed that you are gay.

Do I have any of that incorrect in a material way?

Assuming that I haven't made any meaningful errors...

If your partner presents as a woman, and you are sexually attracted to them... doesn't that make you straight by your definition? Or are you attracted to people who present as men as well as people who present as women, which would make you either bisexual or pansexual?

Are you sexually interested in putting your penis into vaginas?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You know, there's a perfectly acceptable and compassionate perspective available here. You have a long-term partner, that you love. You are gay, and you like dicks, and your partner has a dick. Your partner has come to the realization that they are trans, and they wish to transition to an identity of womanhood. They're still your partner, and you still love them. There's nothing at all wrong with you being a gay man, who is in general attracted to males, but who has enough affection and love for your partner that their transition doesn't alter your attraction to them specifically.

 

[Emily Lake]

How is the sexual orientation necessary for procreation a fetish?

It's not. It's a complete reinvention of what the term "fetish" means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

This is the only thing that makes sense--it's about sex. And since it's about sex I don't mind them excluding vaginas. Sexual preferences are hardwired, it's generally not a matter of discrimination. (Although I can picture someone rejecting someone otherwise suitable because they are a member of a group they dislike.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Before Grindr went Woke, it was somewhat common to see things like 'no fatties, no femmes, no Asians' (or whatever) on profiles. Of course, you also saw 'Black and Latino to the front of the line'.

It's better to know if you're welcome or not. Better for everyone.

Exactly. Preferences and requirements exist in dating. The more up-front people are about those requirements the less effort will be spent pursuing the unobtainable. Saying "no fatties" is a lot better than going on a date and discovering the picture was old and they're a fattie.

 

[Metaphor]

How is the sexual orientation necessary for procreation a fetish?

It's not. It's a complete reinvention of what the term "fetish" means.

Indeed. A reinvention that makes fetish its own antonym.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Generally speaking, there are lots of parts of the human body that are considered erotic. It varies by time and by culture. Some are fairly common - necks, breasts, stomachs, for example. Others are less common, but still not particularly rare - feet and hair are found to be erotic by quite a few people.

Sexual attraction to parts of the human body are not generally considered to be fetishes, unless the attraction is so explicit and strong that it is impossible for a person to achieve sexual satisfaction without that body part being involved. So, for example, many people might find feet to be erotic, but it's only a foot fetish if a person can't achieve orgasm without fondling or viewing feet (or whatever method of focus the fetish takes).

Many paraphilias and fetishes involve a sexual focus on non-living externalia. Leather, rubber, gimp suits, etc.

Most of those fetishes aren't considered mental health disorders that merit treatment or intervention. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, there's nothing actually wrong with fetishes. On the other hand, however, they are still generally considered to be deviations from normal human sexuality.

Most fetishes and paraphilias are the result of early childhood trauma or sexual exposures, generally well before the onset of puberty. There's a period of development that occurs pretty young (I don't recall the age, maybe somewhere between 4 and 6?) where those fetishes can be developed and become fixed. There is some speculation that the fetishes develop as a coping mechanism for traumas and events that a child can't properly process, but which affect their neural development.

As long as it works as a coping mechanism, and doesn't cause a problem for the person's overall well-being, most fetishes and paraphilias don't need treatment.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why should the proprietor be expected to include people without penises at all? Why should lesbians be coerced into accepting people with penises as being lesbians in the first place? I fail to see a valid argument that says that some special group of people with penises should be entitled to access lesbian spaces, regardless of whether lesbians want them there... but that the majority of people with penises should be excluded. Similarly, I fail to see a rational approach that would say that a special group of people with vaginas must be allowed into a gay men's sex club, but that the majority of people with vaginas can be excluded.

Seriously, think about this a bit. If I show up, all 40+year old me, gray hair and droopy boobs... and I declare myself to be a gay transman... why should I be let in to this gay campground? Do you really think that my saying special magic words should entitle me to enter? I mean, hell, I even have a handful of chin hairs! And I'll very happily stop shaving my pits and legs if it helps.

What makes me a transman in the eyes of males, as opposed to a ciswoman?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

What is the definition of "gay" that you're using? And what group of people are you speaking on behalf of?

 

[Emily Lake]

I think the proprietor was going out of his way to offend people. I think it smells of an attempt to get publicity.

It's certainly a possibility... but I'm not so sure that's the most likely answer.

There's a thing that has been going on among the lesbian community for quite some time now. Male-bodied people who identify as woman consider themselves to be "lesbians". There is a portion of transwomen who are attracted to females. And for a good while now, they've been infiltrating lesbian spaces, and hitting on female lesbians. They've been harassing, shaming, and deriding lesbians who do not want to have anything to do with their penises. This particular subset of transwomen view themselves as women, and because they're attracted to females, they believe that lesbians should also be attracted to them. They label female lesbians as bigots and transphobes if they aren't interested in having penis in vagina sex with them.

They even coined the term "the cotton ceiling". The politest interpretation of this says that lesbians will be supportive of transwomen in many ways, but that they draw the line at having sex with them... and that transwomen want those lesbians to "examine their inherent bigotry" in not wanting to have sex with penises. The more blunt interpretation is that it's a direct reference to "the glass ceiling" with respect to women in business and politics - something that needs to be "broken through" in order to gain equality... only here the thing that needs to be "broken through" is the cotton gusset of women's underwear. Oh, it's also interesting to note that the term was coined by a transgender pornographer who was displeased that they couldn't get work in lesbian productions... because they had a penis.

Over the years, the pressure on lesbians - especially young lesbians - to accept penises into their pool of potential sex partners has been increasing. Enough so that a fairly large number of lesbians have been leaving the alphabet soup community altogether.

For the most part, gay men have been a bit insulated from this phenomenon. In part, I think, it's because males aren't as likely to feel physically intimidated by a female, no matter how masculine they might present. Females are smaller and weaker, even after taking testosterone. So at the end of the day, transmen simply don't present a risk to gay males in the same way that transwomen do to lesbian females. I also, however, think that gay men have been sheltered because most females are conditioned to be unobtrusive and to give way before males. It's only been relatively recently that some transmen who consider themselves to be gay men with a "front hole" have started getting pushy toward gay men and insisting that gay males are "transphobic bigots" if they don't want to have sex with them.

Personally, I don't find it particularly surprising that males are a lot more vocal about not wanting to accept obvious bullshit. Males are generally (not always, not all males) conditioned to feel entitled to speak up for their wants, to be loud and pushy and to take up space.

I have it on good authority that a lot of female lesbians are very happy that *finally* the gay males are having this problem, so maybe something will get done about it and they won't be left facing this particular menace to their personal and sexual boundaries all by themselves.