The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
October 23, 2017, 08:10:59 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Brassgoggles.co.uk - The Lighter Side Of Steampunk, follow @brasstech for forum technical problems & updates.
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 100   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Queer Geer (A room for LGBT forum goers)  (Read 142504 times)
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #150 on: December 30, 2009, 02:57:52 am »

I disagree with poly lifestyle, for me, as an individual, I like when I have one person, and someone else has one person.

if someone wants to have more than one love, that is their business, but a world where everyone just had everyone else, would be...in pure essence to me and me alone in my opinion, horrifically boring, and immoral.

some of us(myself included) as members of the human race, are emotional retards, and need one person to focus on, otherwise....we just...die Tongue

*flutters around* yay for a creepy new avatar

edit: to clarify, to each his own, and I think it should remain that way. {only because...the relationship now is the only relationship where someone has not cheated on me, or had the desire to, and I'm quite happy.}

Once again, I feel the need to clarify, the idea isn't to have everyone have everyone, it's for everyone to have as many as they want. If you only want one, that's your choice. Me, I'm exclusive to 2 people, currently. Just because I'm poly doesn't mean I'm interested in loving the entire populace of the planet.
Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #151 on: December 30, 2009, 03:00:10 am »

didn't mean it in that way, it was geared towards the statement of the world becoming all poly. didn't mean literally everyone loves everyone, meant it more like...anybody can love as many people as they want.

then again, I'm a rather controlling individual on my own :\


ehh, as long as it isn't directly interfering in my life, I'm fine with it, my friend is a poly and has a boyfriend, and a girlfriend, and her boyfriend has a boyfriend, and they all co-exist QUITE well together.


so well, that it's kind of...odd to watch, her boyfriend's boyfriend is best friends with her girlfriend and herself, so it's really...interesting :]
Logged

"We're incredibly misunderstood, and so they label us witches...we're locked away in Containment zones, by those who would condemn us."-Noah, Arc of Gelen
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #152 on: December 30, 2009, 03:02:16 am »

Well, honestly... everyone CAN love as many people as they want. It's just most people have been trained to believe they only want one. And that's fine too.
Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #153 on: December 30, 2009, 03:35:04 am »

yup :]

I mean, I'm not saying I don't have feeling for other people, I definitely do, and I'm attracted to alot of other people, I just don't WANT anybody but the person I'm with :]

on a side note...I just broke one of my nails and now it's all...short and....short.... =.= and I had just stopped biting, too.
Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #154 on: December 30, 2009, 04:35:23 am »

also, a question about asexuality.

asexual, by definition...means that you reproduce by splitting yourself, but I'll assume that it's meant here in the sense that A is sans sexuality, that....they have no sexual preference? or it's that...they lack a sexuality whatsoever?

also, I'm a bit shallow, on somethign I read on page 3, I do look at the wrapper the candy comes in first, and then saver the candy inside. I am very picky about my "type" so to speak.
Logged
Choreocrat
Snr. Officer
****
Australia Australia



« Reply #155 on: December 30, 2009, 04:56:08 am »

For the most part, asexual (referring to a human) just means that sex isn't all that interesting to them. Some of them choose to have sex to please their partner. Others are simply celibate. It doesn't usually mean that the person in question doesn't desire a close intimate relationship. Most of the asexuals I've come across on the net *love* to hug and cuddle, but found the notion of mixing pink-bits to be somehow icky. It has sometimes been described as simply having very low or no sex-drive, but that's up for discussion. I understand it to be one of the lesser understood aspects of human sexuality.

Asexuals sometimes have a preference in which gender and/or they want to have their close, intimate, non-sexual relationship with, others are open to various combinations.
Logged

Choreocracy - A form of government in which power is given to the best dancer.

Member of the Earthly Delights Historic Dance Academy
LukeHogbin
Zeppelin Admiral
******
Slovenia Slovenia


Steamcat


« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2009, 05:08:06 am »

Well, parts of what you describe would fit better within the boundaries of antisexualism movement, which is (in my opinion anyway) another fascinating aspect of the entire human sexuality subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism
Logged

I have defied Gods and Demons. I am your shield; I am your sword. I know you: your past, your future. This is the way the world ends.
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #157 on: December 30, 2009, 05:29:51 am »

ahhh ok, that makes perfect sense :]

I have a very sexual drive, but...I don't actually like sex :\ just...the OTHER stuff.


._. I just realized how creepy my avatar looks, oi.....the red eyes didn't translate well.
Logged
darkshines
Rogue Ætherlord
*
Wales Wales


Miss Katonic 1898


« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2009, 10:58:05 am »

I have three best friends, two are gay and one is asexual. He doesn't find men or women, or anythig in between sexually attractive. He doesn't find ANYTHING sexually attractive. He told me he tried masturbating once, at the age of 21, and it made him feel sick to orgasm. He has led a normal, stable life, has never been abused, has had offers from several people for relationships and more, but just doesn't DO sex. He is a loyal fiend, and has friends of every gender, belief and walk of life, as with a lot of asexual people. I adore him, and see him as a brother, as I do my gay friends Smiley
Logged

Every time you say "cog" when you mean "gear" or "sprocket", Cthulu kills a kitten. 
 
www.etsy.com/shop/celticroseart
Lilith-Nighthawk
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States


beautious thorn


« Reply #159 on: December 30, 2009, 11:44:57 am »

It's really odd, I've been emotionally attracted to girls before, but guys are just...beautiful to me, in every aspect.

I love the male body, well...mostly, I find far more women pretty than men....

and the gay men population that is OUT where I live, is predominantly trashy and....fairy-like.

oh i dont find it odd at all. I'm atracted to girls in every way, but that doesn't mean even if i'm not attracted to them i'm not able to find a guy pretty. I love looking at pretty andro visual kie guys and girls. I've ocastionally(sp?) been attracted to some of the trans guys I know.

I can deal with queens pretty easy but that doesnt mean i'll suffer absolutly crazy queen. Some of my closest gay male friends are a bit queenie but their not over the top. I know one guy that went into the millitary and got discharged for ADHD, but he can still sing whole scenes from rent. But I know what you mean over the top fae twink type queens are just the worse.

*goes back to watching beautiful thing, and trying to bribe my mum to get it for my birthday in february.*
Logged

"I've been sliding through an interdimensional wormhole seeing how many ways people like you can screw up civilization!"
        - Quinn Mallory, "Sliders"

"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here."
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #160 on: December 30, 2009, 04:04:50 pm »

indeed indeed, I mean...I've had people ask me

if I'm masculine or feminine

and I don't really think I'm either, I mean...I don't like sports, i don't like working out, I'm not a burly manly man ARRGGHHHH

but..I wouldn't really say I'm girly, I have feminine tendancies, as in I put work into my hair and appearance and clothes, buuuuuuut yeah.


>-> went to a club once, worst experience of my life ><

--watching little pet shop of horrors--
Logged
Utini420
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


it is OK to tell me when its time to shut up


WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 30, 2009, 04:40:37 pm »

On a poly thread: don't really see the point, so far this has been a pretty high-brow discussion of everything non-vanilla under the sun.  Hell, I'd say its done some use just to help folks understand the way we use the various terms and labels.  If the more "pure queers," (how often do you get to say that?) feel like we've intruded maybe they'll say so. Personally I feel like there's just too much overlap to completely separate the gay out of the poly, but I could understand some gay folks wanting to filter the poly out of gay discussion.  Still, while hardly all or even most, its safe to say that many poly relationships feature at least an aspect of bisexuality for at least one of the participants.  The gravity between the two groups seems pretty obvious to me.  Hell, I can remember when it was just GL, then GLB, and then GLBT.  I'd not be surprised if a "P" wasn't added on before too long.

On partners and love: ya, I want to make this very clear: polyamory is not "free love" or a high-brow term for swinging.  What it means, for me, is the freedom to be myself and the tools to do so responsibly.  I don't know if its a mental circuit I lack, or a bit of social programming that never stuck, or if I just skipped class the day they explained it, but I never "got" that little social que about not sleeping with your friends.  I don't understand it, so I can't really sum it up, but ya know that drama that can (often will) ensue if two friends hook up after the party?  I never understood it, but I had to endure a lot of it.  It never made a lick of sense to me: if I'm not supposed to get all snuggly with my friends, who am I supposed to do that with?  Strangers?  Is it better to be meeting people and building relationships with them for the sole purpose of having sex, or is it better to have sex with people you already have a meaningful, close relationship with?  I need to care about someone to sleep with them, but I don't have to be "In Love," the regular love one feels for close friends is enough.

The other side of that coin is the "doing it responsibly" bit, by which I mean, basically, being a big ol' slut without hurting anyone's feelings.  No cheating (not me, not the person I'm with, none).  Seriously, fucking no cheating.  And implying to your primary that, ya know, you and I might make out does not mean you have your primary's consent to do the horizontal tango!  Keeping tabs on everyone's expectations, needs, wants, and commitment levels is critical.  No false pretenses, no assumptions, and no telling people what you think they want to hear.

Actually, poly is a lot of damn work.  But it can be worth it.
Logged

If you have a Dremmel, everything is compatible.
Utini's Workshop:   http://utini420.blogspot.com
LukeHogbin
Zeppelin Admiral
******
Slovenia Slovenia


Steamcat


« Reply #162 on: December 30, 2009, 06:05:04 pm »

Keeping tabs on everyone's expectations, needs, wants, and commitment levels is critical.  No false pretenses, no assumptions, and no telling people what you think they want to hear.

It's pretty much the same in one-on-one relationships as well, as far as I'm concerned. Do keep in mind, I don't mean this as an offensive stance against poly. As it was already said, to each their own. Smiley
Logged
Utini420
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


it is OK to tell me when its time to shut up


WWW
« Reply #163 on: December 30, 2009, 06:23:30 pm »

Actually, no, that's an excellent point and no offense taken.

I think what makes it different for most poly folks vs. at least my impression of most mono folks, is that poly folks (at least, the ones any good at it) know they are going to have to make a concerted effort in those areas.  Many mono folks seem to think that if, "its meant to be," then they'll just fall effortlessly into each other's arms and all that stuff will just mesh on its own.  It don't work that way, and to be sure many mono couples work through the same sorts of stuff.  But the failure rate of relationships indicates that many people are at least not doing as much work on their relationships as they should.

A comment/suggestion I've given to straight, monogamous couples in the past (and this was in the flow of conversation, its not like I'm running around evangelizing this stuff) is to take the notion of a threesome and discuss the possibilities of having one.  Even as a thought experiment never intended to be put into actual practice, this line of conversation will bring up interesting stuff about yourselves and your relationship that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Take that with a grain of salt, though: I'm a big ol' talker, and my wife and I (kinky freak that I am, she's hung around for over 10 years now, married for Cool joke that at this point we can't even decide who's going to take the long way home to pick up dinner without communicating our feelings about it.  Roll Eyes




Since there's a handful of is in here, let me toss out a question to the poly part of the group: for you (or in general) do you think its a choice or not?  I'm not sure its on as deep and fundamental a level as homo/hetero sexuality, but at least for me it doesn't seem like something I rationally thought about and decided to do, I feel like I was pretty much "wired this way."  Sure, I could try and "keep it in my pants," so to speak, but that would be really taxing.  Again, not the same thing as a gay man acting straight, but a good bit more integral to who I am than, say, a typical dude considering cheating on his wife.  In other words, I could control the actions, but not the impulse.  How about you?  Fundamental part of your nature, or life style choice, or something else?  (By asking this, I don't mean to imply that a conscious choice is in any way "lesser" than a fundamental circuit.  I think I'm wired like this, but my wife thinks she has consciously chosen it.)
Logged
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #164 on: December 30, 2009, 06:35:49 pm »

Personally, trying to force myself into a mono relationship was harder and more self-denying than trying to force myself to be completely straight (but perhaps that's because I'm so very bi that bi feels like it's leaving options out?) Many of the feelings you've expressed about hooking up with friends vs strangers, the violent aversion to cheating on any level, the necessity of open communication, they're all pretty well along the same lines as mine. That being said, most of my partners "chose" it to adapt to my lifestyle. Several times they've had to think it over very deeply before being able to accept it, but usually there's a moment when they "get" it and the lightbulb goes off, and suddenly everyone's a LOT more comfortable.

Let me also clarify: I do NOT, nor have I, forced partners into accepting my poly leanings, though at this point anyone new would have to know and accept that I have 2 permanent partners who I haven't even the vaguest intention of leaving.
Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #165 on: December 30, 2009, 07:10:49 pm »

like i said, to each his own..if you have feelings towards a specific thing, don't reject it unless you absolutely must, for your own personal well-being. might sound a bit selfish, but...it's your life, afterall, people say a life lived for others is the only good life, but a life lived for others, isn't a life of ones own. wheee I just rambled in a riddle-esque way.


I do doubt if they add a P to this though, because monogamy and polygamy are moreso relationship standards, not directly related to ones' sexuality nor being a sexuality in itself.

._. but I'm learning alot and it's making me really happy because my brain feels like it's grasping understanding of things that were previously fairly alien to me.
Logged
Utini420
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


it is OK to tell me when its time to shut up


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 30, 2009, 07:18:24 pm »

because monogamy and polygamy are moreso relationship standards...

Hay, more terms to clarify!  I'm going with ultra-simple, not text book definitions here:
Polygamy: a marriage where he can have lots of women, who must share him (nothing with each other, nothing outside)
Polyandry: a marriage where she can have lots of men, who must share her (nothing with each other, nothing outside)
Polyamory: intimate relationships (may or may not constitute marriage(s)) between 3 or more people, all of whom may (or may not) be free to pursue outside relationships.

There are better definitions out there, but that outta work for now.
Logged
LukeHogbin
Zeppelin Admiral
******
Slovenia Slovenia


Steamcat


« Reply #167 on: December 30, 2009, 07:24:58 pm »

Many mono folks seem to think that if, "its meant to be," then they'll just fall effortlessly into each other's arms and all that stuff will just mesh on its own.

Many people in general seem to be having that problem... At least I see it a lot when I look around.

A comment/suggestion I've given to straight, monogamous couples in the past (and this was in the flow of conversation, its not like I'm running around evangelizing this stuff) is to take the notion of a threesome and discuss the possibilities of having one.  Even as a thought experiment never intended to be put into actual practice, this line of conversation will bring up interesting stuff about yourselves and your relationship that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Indeed such things tend to reveal a lot about one's personality in relation to self and to the other person(s). Excellent idea.

Since there's a handful of is in here, let me toss out a question to the poly part of the group: for you (or in general) do you think its a choice or not?  I'm not sure its on as deep and fundamental a level as homo/hetero sexuality, but at least for me it doesn't seem like something I rationally thought about and decided to do, I feel like I was pretty much "wired this way."  Sure, I could try and "keep it in my pants," so to speak, but that would be really taxing.  Again, not the same thing as a gay man acting straight, but a good bit more integral to who I am than, say, a typical dude considering cheating on his wife.  In other words, I could control the actions, but not the impulse.  How about you?  Fundamental part of your nature, or life style choice, or something else?  (By asking this, I don't mean to imply that a conscious choice is in any way "lesser" than a fundamental circuit.  I think I'm wired like this, but my wife thinks she has consciously chosen it.)

I apologise for butting in, while not being one of the poly part of the group: If you ask me, it depends on a person. Some might be wired that way while others, as said, might make a conscious choice. So I think both are true.

._. but I'm learning alot and it's making me really happy because my brain feels like it's grasping understanding of things that were previously fairly alien to me.

Same here. And it's a privilege being surrounded by lovely people such as yourselves who take no offense in the silliest of questions and ideas. Grin *thumbs up*
Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #168 on: December 30, 2009, 08:19:00 pm »

ok well...POLY.

still has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so most likely it'd have to be a seperate thread, otherwise you'd have to add an M, can't just exclude all of the mono people, eh?



and yeah...I know, thanks for being patient guys, I ask...SO many questions sometimes I annoy even myself.

on....a dimmer note, one of my earring holes seems to be diagnol or something, I put my earring in and it's lopsided....pointing down, maybe I somehow pricked a second hold?
Logged
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #169 on: December 30, 2009, 11:15:52 pm »

Yes but one could argue that poly IS a sexual orientation... especially in cases such as my own where it feels natural/necessary for relationship satisfaction. Mono wouldn't be added, because, well, we don't add an S for the straights, do we? It'd be rather the same thing. Hence why people use the word 'queer' rather than the LGBT acronym- it then includes 'anyone with a relationship preference divergent from the norm, which is straight monogamous' without getting into unwieldy and confusing letter choices.

On the earring note: you have my sympathies... bloody shopkeep flinched when she did mine... now I can just about only wear posts, as anything else juts to an odd angle.

Logged
SashaGears
Gunner
**
United States United States


Black Market Treasure Hunter

hexinfiniti
« Reply #170 on: December 31, 2009, 12:28:06 am »

well it's like...my left ear has my plug in it perfectly fine, looks good, but the right one..looks odd D:

got my tattoo today, now my wrist hurts.
Logged
Choreocrat
Snr. Officer
****
Australia Australia



« Reply #171 on: December 31, 2009, 01:31:10 am »

What you mean LGBTTQQIPPA is too much? Tongue
Logged
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #172 on: December 31, 2009, 01:33:26 am »

What you mean LGBTTQQIPPA is too much? Tongue

By the cogs, the acronyms are multiplying like MAD! Quick, set the traps, we'll have the bloody things wrangled and extended back out to proper words yet!
Logged
Choreocrat
Snr. Officer
****
Australia Australia



« Reply #173 on: December 31, 2009, 03:13:39 am »

It worries me slightly that I could come up with that monstrosity. Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Transsexual-Queer-Questioning-Intersex-Pansexual-Polyamorous-Asexual! And I could go on... I didn't include anything about bigendered, non-gendered, transvestite, etc.

It comes down to the same problem being discussed on the steampunk-subdivisions thread started earlier today. Do you keep the shortcut labels that can be used to describe, knowing that they'll be misused to box people up and divide them, or do away with them altogether and lose the descriptions of all that diversity? Asexuals and Polyamorous Pansexuals are opposite ends of the queer spectrum in a lot of ways. If someone just says they're "queer" it could be anywhere between the two. And yet, I don't doubt that there's a polyamorous pansexual asexual out there, who likes to have an intimate non-sexual relationship with more than one person. Furthermore, asexuals and poly-pans are often found being friends, because they have things in common oter than sexuality, and they both fall outside the norm.

If we keep the labels, we risk losing the community. If we dump them, we risk losing the connective tissue and the diversity. We'll all just be queer, and misunderstood.

Does anyone else notice that the queer thread on any forum ends up as a discussion of acronyms and label definitions? Let's talk about something better.

I'm a fan:

Anyone with me on that one?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 03:16:24 am by Choreocrat » Logged
Isabella Stormrift
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States



« Reply #174 on: December 31, 2009, 05:09:37 am »

...wouldn't being pansexual and asexual be mutually exclusive?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 100   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.45 seconds with 17 queries.