"Dating preferences are discriminatory" - Forum

Private
World Famous

remains wrote:
if youre just attracted to genitals then start calling yourself gynosexual or phallosexual otherwise youre just making it worse for everybody who just wants to date and doesnt give a shit

Private
World Famous

remains wrote:

acidreflux wrote:

bones wrote:

acidreflux wrote:
then she's bi ... also "look past a penis" ??? either you're into it or not, and lesbians aren't into dick.

*trans lesbians dating other trans lesbians immediately disintegrate*

yeah because they don't exist

interesting, do you have a source for this?

Bloodflowers
Popstar

Bloodflowers wrote:

bones wrote:
if youre just attracted to genitals then start calling yourself gynosexual or phallosexual otherwise youre just making it worse for everybody who just wants to date and doesnt give a shit

Ehat qbout hands

Anachronism
National Star

Anachronism wrote:

acidreflux wrote:

Anachronism wrote:
Which is fine!

But... if a lesbian who has only had a history of dating and being with cis women dates a transwoman, and can look past a penis like... do we have a right to say shes bisexual then?

then she's bi ... also "look past a penis" ??? either you're into it or not, and lesbians aren't into dick.

Ok but how can you be sure she even has contact with the penis? You dont know that

Also I'm not talking about gender identity. Like, if you're into a transwomen who has defined curves and breasts and other secondary sexual characteristics, I think it's safe to say you were attracted to the female attributes, right? Sure, having a penis might completely end the deal (and not all transwomen do fyi), and no one should pressure you to date someone in that situation... but why is it so hard to believe some women can ignore the penis because everything else is doing it for them? Why do they automatically have to be bi?

Account deleted

wrote:

bones wrote:

acidreflux wrote:

bones wrote:
*trans lesbians dating other trans lesbians immediately disintegrate*

yeah because they don't exist

interesting, do you have a source for this?

men can't be lesbians.

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

acidreflux wrote:
then she's bi ... also "look past a penis" ??? either you're into it or not, and lesbians aren't into dick.

Ok but how can you be sure she even has contact with the penis? You dont know that

Also I'm not talking about gender identity. Like, if you're into a transwomen who has defined curves and breasts and other secondary sexual characteristics, I think it's safe to say you were attracted to the female attributes, right? Sure, having a penis might completely end the deal (and not all transwomen do fyi), and no one should pressure you to date someone in that situation... but why is it so hard to believe some women can ignore the penis because everything else is doing it for them? Why do they automatically have to be bi?

Bless you right now

Anachronism
National Star

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Anachronism wrote:
Ok but how can you be sure she even has contact with the penis? You dont know that

Also I'm not talking about gender identity. Like, if you're into a transwomen who has defined curves and breasts and other secondary sexual characteristics, I think it's safe to say you were attracted to the female attributes, right? Sure, having a penis might completely end the deal (and not all transwomen do fyi), and no one should pressure you to date someone in that situation... but why is it so hard to believe some women can ignore the penis because everything else is doing it for them? Why do they automatically have to be bi?

Bless you right now

I cannot tell if ur being sarcastic or agree, lol

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:
Also I'm not talking about gender identity. Like, if you're into a transwomen who has defined curves and breasts and other secondary sexual characteristics, I think it's safe to say you were attracted to the female attributes, right? Sure, having a penis might completely end the deal (and not all transwomen do fyi), and no one should pressure you to date someone in that situation... but why is it so hard to believe some women can ignore the penis because everything else is doing it for them? Why do they automatically have to be bi?

Bless you right now

I cannot tell if ur being sarcastic or agree, lol

I agree with you

Private
Streetmusician

commander2 wrote:
i think everyone should date me

Anachronism
National Star

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Alam wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
I generally avoid the debate, there is too much shit going on in it and I can't see myself agreeing with any side. Same goes for the discussion in this thread, you're all wrong. It is and remains more nuanced than the debate currently appears to express.

I agree that it is more nuanced but I don't think there is quite an objective truth here or anywhere, and I think you're being quite condescending in saying that we're all wrong. It's fair if you disagree with all of us but we're all, for the most part, reasonable people here, I don't think anyone here is logical in the way they came to their conclusions. I'm assuming, I haven't paid close attention to the thread.

I've observed the discussion and I think the arguments are flawed and problematic on both sides, but I'm not invested enough to elaborate on why I think so. In general, though, I do agree with Claire that the lgbt+ debate appears to have shifted towards focusing on why someone's sexual preference is problematic because of bias rather than accepting that people like different things. People seems to be so sickly concerned about what other people are, do, and like. Why? Does it really matter? Most of us aren't going to reach 80 years old. It's a pointless debate trying to force people into the same kind of thought process. So what if people are biased, good luck trying not to be biased. I've yet to meet a person who has no bias towards anything, it's just how it is. We prefer some things over other things and it's going to be quite a wild ride if someone attempts to completely remove bias and make everything equal. It's just not going to work.
Does it really matter that people won't date x because of y? I don't think so. Would you even want to date someone who doesn't want to date you because of an aspect of your being is unappealing to them??? I certainly would not.
Again this makes no sense as usual because I keep losing track because of my headache lmao tragic excuse but it's really bad.

I used to agree with you... but I'm unsure that's the case now. Think of it this way; we're told penetration is exclusively a cishet thing. It obviously is not. Women can be penetrated by toys, fingers, straps... they can even enjoy sucking a strap! Are they bi then? No. Ofc not, because penetration isnt exclusively a cishet thing. I think progressives are trying to say that our views of sexuality are informed by white, eurocentric, patriarchal, heteronormative values that ought to be dismantled and I agree. I think it's just hard to find the right way to word that without making it sound like a personal attack.

I started changing my view when my friend was dating a trans chick and I used that as evidence that hes gay (he identifies as bi fyi). The person I was discussing this with said, "ok, but if this person otherwise has breasts, soft skin, feminine curves, where do we draw the line?" Honestly... that is a REALLY good point.

Sure, genitals play a role in attraction. However, I don't necessarily think all people are as repulsed by certain genitals as were led to believe. Some people may be, but I think a lot of people are indifferent and I dont think that makes a person bi, just like I don't think enjoying penetration means you are attracted to men. I know gay people who weren't disgusted by het sex.... just really bored! Seems people forget that.

I understand some people just cannot do penises or vagina, but if a women is attracted to Buck Angel, are they gay because he has a vagina? Honestly I would question if a lesbian is truly a lesbian if shes attracted to Buck just because he has a vagina. You cant even tell he was born a women unless he tells you or you see him naked. But if a straight women realized they cant get past the vagina, I wouldn't say they're transphobic either.

Basically I think people are too black and white. I do not think loving pussy or dick (or both) is a bad thing, but this incredibly strange obsession with the genitals of trans ppl and assumptions about their sex life strikes me as sexual objectification and biological essentialism.

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Alam wrote:
I agree that it is more nuanced but I don't think there is quite an objective truth here or anywhere, and I think you're being quite condescending in saying that we're all wrong. It's fair if you disagree with all of us but we're all, for the most part, reasonable people here, I don't think anyone here is logical in the way they came to their conclusions. I'm assuming, I haven't paid close attention to the thread.

I've observed the discussion and I think the arguments are flawed and problematic on both sides, but I'm not invested enough to elaborate on why I think so. In general, though, I do agree with Claire that the lgbt+ debate appears to have shifted towards focusing on why someone's sexual preference is problematic because of bias rather than accepting that people like different things. People seems to be so sickly concerned about what other people are, do, and like. Why? Does it really matter? Most of us aren't going to reach 80 years old. It's a pointless debate trying to force people into the same kind of thought process. So what if people are biased, good luck trying not to be biased. I've yet to meet a person who has no bias towards anything, it's just how it is. We prefer some things over other things and it's going to be quite a wild ride if someone attempts to completely remove bias and make everything equal. It's just not going to work.
Does it really matter that people won't date x because of y? I don't think so. Would you even want to date someone who doesn't want to date you because of an aspect of your being is unappealing to them??? I certainly would not.
Again this makes no sense as usual because I keep losing track because of my headache lmao tragic excuse but it's really bad.

I used to agree with you... but I'm unsure that's the case now. Think of it this way; we're told penetration is exclusively a cishet thing. It obviously is not. Women can be penetrated by toys, fingers, straps... they can even enjoy sucking a strap! Are they bi then? No. Ofc not, because penetration isnt exclusively a cishet thing. I think progressives are trying to say that our views of sexuality are informed by white, eurocentric, patriarchal, heteronormative values that ought to be dismantled and I agree. I think it's just hard to find the right way to word that without making it sound like a personal attack.

I started changing my view when my friend was dating a trans chick and I used that as evidence that hes gay (he identifies as bi fyi). The person I was discussing this with said, "ok, but if this person otherwise has breasts, soft skin, feminine curves, where do we draw the line?" Honestly... that is a REALLY good point.

Sure, genitals play a role in attraction. However, I don't necessarily think all people are as repulsed by certain genitals as were led to believe. Some people may be, but I think a lot of people are indifferent and I dont think that makes a person bi, just like I don't think enjoying penetration means you are attracted to men. I know gay people who weren't disgusted by het sex.... just really bored! Seems people forget that.

I understand some people just cannot do penises or vagina, but if a women is attracted to Buck Angel, are they gay because he has a vagina? Honestly I would question if a lesbian is truly a lesbian if shes attracted to Buck just because he has a vagina. You cant even tell he was born a women unless he tells you or you see him naked. He has the secondary characteristics of a man But if a straight women realized they cant get past the vagina, I wouldn't say they're transphobic either.

Basically I think people are too black and white. I do not think loving pussy or dick (or both) is a bad thing, but this incredibly strange obsession with the genitals of trans ppl and assumptions about their sex life strikes me as sexual objectification and biological essentialism.

I'm confused about how this goes against my opinion

I think it's weird how we are trying to go away from the notion that we are our bodies rather than minds, but when it comes to dating it's suddenly exclusively about the bodies - especially if someone is trans. I don't understand it but I mean.. hm.

Anachronism
National Star

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
I've observed the discussion and I think the arguments are flawed and problematic on both sides, but I'm not invested enough to elaborate on why I think so. In general, though, I do agree with Claire that the lgbt+ debate appears to have shifted towards focusing on why someone's sexual preference is problematic because of bias rather than accepting that people like different things. People seems to be so sickly concerned about what other people are, do, and like. Why? Does it really matter? Most of us aren't going to reach 80 years old. It's a pointless debate trying to force people into the same kind of thought process. So what if people are biased, good luck trying not to be biased. I've yet to meet a person who has no bias towards anything, it's just how it is. We prefer some things over other things and it's going to be quite a wild ride if someone attempts to completely remove bias and make everything equal. It's just not going to work.
Does it really matter that people won't date x because of y? I don't think so. Would you even want to date someone who doesn't want to date you because of an aspect of your being is unappealing to them??? I certainly would not.
Again this makes no sense as usual because I keep losing track because of my headache lmao tragic excuse but it's really bad.

I used to agree with you... but I'm unsure that's the case now. Think of it this way; we're told penetration is exclusively a cishet thing. It obviously is not. Women can be penetrated by toys, fingers, straps... they can even enjoy sucking a strap! Are they bi then? No. Ofc not, because penetration isnt exclusively a cishet thing. I think progressives are trying to say that our views of sexuality are informed by white, eurocentric, patriarchal, heteronormative values that ought to be dismantled and I agree. I think it's just hard to find the right way to word that without making it sound like a personal attack.

I started changing my view when my friend was dating a trans chick and I used that as evidence that hes gay (he identifies as bi fyi). The person I was discussing this with said, "ok, but if this person otherwise has breasts, soft skin, feminine curves, where do we draw the line?" Honestly... that is a REALLY good point.

Sure, genitals play a role in attraction. However, I don't necessarily think all people are as repulsed by certain genitals as were led to believe. Some people may be, but I think a lot of people are indifferent and I dont think that makes a person bi, just like I don't think enjoying penetration means you are attracted to men. I know gay people who weren't disgusted by het sex.... just really bored! Seems people forget that.

I understand some people just cannot do penises or vagina, but if a women is attracted to Buck Angel, are they gay because he has a vagina? Honestly I would question if a lesbian is truly a lesbian if shes attracted to Buck just because he has a vagina. You cant even tell he was born a women unless he tells you or you see him naked. He has the secondary characteristics of a man But if a straight women realized they cant get past the vagina, I wouldn't say they're transphobic either.

Basically I think people are too black and white. I do not think loving pussy or dick (or both) is a bad thing, but this incredibly strange obsession with the genitals of trans ppl and assumptions about their sex life strikes me as sexual objectification and biological essentialism.

I'm confused about how this goes against my opinion

I think it's weird how we are trying to go away from the notion that we are our bodies rather than minds, but when it comes to dating it's suddenly exclusively about the bodies - especially if someone is trans. I don't understand it but I mean.. hm.

Oh, I agree. I guess I was saying I dont really buy that progressives are trying to say that we have to "unlearn our preferences" inasmuch as that our views of sexuality are structured by cishet, patriarchal and eurocentric standards and that it can be difficult to even recognize that.

You're spot on that the shift to people's bodies is bizarre. I didnt even realize how much I was objectifying the bodies of trans people by focusing so much on their genitals and assuming their sex lives until I really thought about it.

Honestly.... I dont think gender critical feminism is really feminism when they reduce women to their bodies. Gross.

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:
I used to agree with you... but I'm unsure that's the case now. Think of it this way; we're told penetration is exclusively a cishet thing. It obviously is not. Women can be penetrated by toys, fingers, straps... they can even enjoy sucking a strap! Are they bi then? No. Ofc not, because penetration isnt exclusively a cishet thing. I think progressives are trying to say that our views of sexuality are informed by white, eurocentric, patriarchal, heteronormative values that ought to be dismantled and I agree. I think it's just hard to find the right way to word that without making it sound like a personal attack.

I started changing my view when my friend was dating a trans chick and I used that as evidence that hes gay (he identifies as bi fyi). The person I was discussing this with said, "ok, but if this person otherwise has breasts, soft skin, feminine curves, where do we draw the line?" Honestly... that is a REALLY good point.

Sure, genitals play a role in attraction. However, I don't necessarily think all people are as repulsed by certain genitals as were led to believe. Some people may be, but I think a lot of people are indifferent and I dont think that makes a person bi, just like I don't think enjoying penetration means you are attracted to men. I know gay people who weren't disgusted by het sex.... just really bored! Seems people forget that.

I understand some people just cannot do penises or vagina, but if a women is attracted to Buck Angel, are they gay because he has a vagina? Honestly I would question if a lesbian is truly a lesbian if shes attracted to Buck just because he has a vagina. You cant even tell he was born a women unless he tells you or you see him naked. He has the secondary characteristics of a man But if a straight women realized they cant get past the vagina, I wouldn't say they're transphobic either.

Basically I think people are too black and white. I do not think loving pussy or dick (or both) is a bad thing, but this incredibly strange obsession with the genitals of trans ppl and assumptions about their sex life strikes me as sexual objectification and biological essentialism.

I'm confused about how this goes against my opinion

I think it's weird how we are trying to go away from the notion that we are our bodies rather than minds, but when it comes to dating it's suddenly exclusively about the bodies - especially if someone is trans. I don't understand it but I mean.. hm.

Oh, I agree. I guess I was saying I dont really buy that progressives are trying to say that we have to "unlearn our preferences" inasmuch as that our views of sexuality are structured by cishet, patriarchal and eurocentric standards and that it can be difficult to even recognize that.

You're spot on that the shift to people's bodies is bizarre. I didnt even realize how much I was objectifying the bodies of trans people by focusing so much on their genitals and assuming their sex lives until I really thought about it.

Honestly.... I dont think gender critical feminism is really feminism when they reduce women to their bodies. Gross.

Yeah. I see. I think there are people who are like that and the thing is that people with loud, and, honestly, problematic opinions tend to be the most visible in any debate. For some reason they're obsessed with making their views publicly clear and those people exist on both sides of the debate imo.

I think it's very shady when people gets so focused on other people's bodies and sex lives, it's very absurd to me.

Yeah, I agree.

Anachronism
National Star

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:
I'm confused about how this goes against my opinion

I think it's weird how we are trying to go away from the notion that we are our bodies rather than minds, but when it comes to dating it's suddenly exclusively about the bodies - especially if someone is trans. I don't understand it but I mean.. hm.

Oh, I agree. I guess I was saying I dont really buy that progressives are trying to say that we have to "unlearn our preferences" inasmuch as that our views of sexuality are structured by cishet, patriarchal and eurocentric standards and that it can be difficult to even recognize that.

You're spot on that the shift to people's bodies is bizarre. I didnt even realize how much I was objectifying the bodies of trans people by focusing so much on their genitals and assuming their sex lives until I really thought about it.

Honestly.... I dont think gender critical feminism is really feminism when they reduce women to their bodies. Gross.

Yeah. I see. I think there are people who are like that and the thing is that people with loud, and, honestly, problematic opinions tend to be the most visible in any debate. For some reason they're obsessed with making their views publicly clear and those people exist on both sides of the debate imo.

I think it's very shady when people gets so focused on other people's bodies and sex lives, it's very absurd to me.

Yeah, I agree.

Honestly, the creepy obsession with bodies and sex acts is the point riley was trying to make I think. She way understated that genials play a role in attraction however, much like some people put too much of an emphasis on a person's genitals.

I also dont think its unreasonable to wonder if for some people it's not really the genitals that gross them out, but what they're attached to. People have the most narrow view of sexuality and it needs to stop.

I also wonder if there are people who are secretly attracted to trans ppl but wont engage b/c they're afraid of people judging their sexuality. Honestly we just need to stop obsessing over people's sexuality and let them be free to fuck whomever they want if its mutually consentual.

Dont date anyone of anyone identity cuz it makes u feel woke tho... that's also gross lol.

Persona
Streetmusician

Persona wrote:
I mean... yes, dating preferences are discriminatory but that's fine lol. It's not like you're hiring someone to work in your company, you are choosing a sexual partner. I do believe our sexual preferences are heavily influenced by our upbringing and environment and therefore have reflections of racial/weight related/etc prejudice. And it's fine to reflect upon the reasons why you have particular preferences (especially if they are unhealthy).. But at the same time, you shouldn't feel you have to widen your dating pool to be 'more inclusive'. Dating is discriminatory by nature. It's your right to be picky. And there are much better ways you can fight for political equality than to date someone from a minority group, which pretty much does and means nothing (for example, you can be a massive racist but have a preference for Asian women etc)