Woman's March on Washington 2017 - Page 5

@Mindhunt  Oh, I understand the angst being presented. It isn't so much where to put the pinpoint on the spectrum being contemplated, if that is a person's working theory on how they define their sense of self. Only that given a choice, it often becomes the choice, and I wonder that there then can be an illusion of self, that if not a core truth defeats the goal of happiness. The fluidity theory makes things convenient.

Before AIDS scared the easy sex life out of everybody, the gay culture was quite different than what is presented today in shows like Modern Family, where the gay couple is a stereotype; they adopt a Chinese baby girl, one partner takes the domestic role and the other partner, the breadwinner.

The rampant promiscuity accepted by the 80's gay culture was stopped in its tracks by the deathly specter of HIV. Yes, I was there, I saw it, if you can imagine PTown back then. The media portrayal seen now, created a new dialogue based on enduring love, born out of the necessity in seeking equality the same as in a hetero marriage. Gay legal partners or unions were demanded because the dying partners weren't allowed their lovers at the hospital beds because they weren't ruled as family. That is the basis of the societal pressure that began and determined the now modern gender narrative from one type of happiness seeking into another. That shows real fluidity, too, I am thinking.

Consider this statement as an example:

“For a long time, I wished I’d been born a boy. I didn’t know there were options like gender neutral or gender fluid. I later realized you could be a girl and dress like a guy.” Rose announced her engagement to designer Phoebe Dahl in March 2014. After the release of her short film about gender roles in 2014, Break Free she discussed identifying as gender fluid. She explained to the U.K.'s Guardian, "I feel like I'm a boy, but I don't feel like I should've been born with different parts of my body or anything like that. I feel like it's just all in how I dress and how I talk and how I look and feel, and that makes me happy."

http://www.pride.com/love-marriage/2015/06/04/ruby-rose-gender-identity-love-and-happiness

I find it rather anticlimatic, that the crucial defining criteria then becomes about clothing choices and adopting perceived mannerisms of the other sex. It should be about something more, like a skill, a talent, a calling, even a compassionate nature. That would seem to be much more fulfilling and lasting for obtaining a lasting happiness when next one is faced with one's preference for an attraction factor. This is often not even a conscience decision, there is science based on that, too.

If your point about questioning means not a self-identity acceptance, but rather acceptance consequences, that if someone has shitty parents that are saying messed-up messages to their kids because of their gender self- identities, they will probably do that with any number of aspects belonging to their offspring, and of course that would be very wrong. No doubt there is unfair luck in family circumstances and the genetic lottery. And why your profession is needed.

 

beetree said, "Before AIDS scared the easy sex life out of everybody, the gay culture was quite different than what is presented today in shows like Modern Family, where the gay couple is a stereotype; they adopt a Chinese baby girl, one partner takes the domestic role and the other partner, the breadwinner.
The rampant promiscuity accepted by the 80's gay culture was stopped in its tracks by the deathly specter of HIV. Yes, I was there, I saw it, if you can imagine PTown back then."

Gay culture? So you assume that the few gay men you saw represented the behaviors and lifestyles of all gay men? So every female college student is just like the ones that are on those Girls Gone Wild videos?

Rampant promiscuity? Because all heterosexuals have always been Puritans? I could just as easily say that all the swinging I heard about going on in the 70s means that all married couples back then had open marriages.

Gay culture on TV today? You don't watch much Modern Family because it shows that all gay men don't conform to one "culture." Their child is actually Vietnamese which you would have known as well. If that show presents one gay couple a certain way that is beyond your past personal experience it's because our society has changed enough to make that couple an actual possibility. You also view their marriage as a correlate to a traditional heterosexual one instead of looking at it as something different, at least as far as how the family roles are structured. In other words, in your mind you see one man as the husband and the other the wife. That is not the case with that couple although it is how their fathers view it.

You have no idea what you are talking about the PTown gay culture before AIDs, which I do.

You got me there, on Modern Family, I missed a whole bunch of episodes especially the first ones, so I am guilty of thinking she was Chinese. Not that big of a deal, whereas the point I make of presenting gay couple stereotype roles in the TV media is still valid and yours is ... ? If you can't see the stereotypes that is your problem, not mine. I really don't care to explain any of my points to you because that is an impossibility, you would have to have an open mind to my writings, and you don't. It is a waste of my time.

Beetree, I am begining to think you have one view of LGBTQIA and nothing is going to change it or bring it into the 21st century.  Theory of fluidity?  Choice becomes about the choice Really?  Being a member of the LGBTQIA community is no more a choice than your own gender identity and attaction was. 

For another thing, AIDs has nothign to do with promiscuity, it was brought into this country very early on from Haiti and not the urban legend of Gaetan Dugas.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/26/498876985/mystery-solved-how-hiv-came-to-the-u-s

Most LGBT relationships are very egalitarian with no "husband" or "wife" division of duties or mindset.

"The media portrayal seen now, created a new dialogue based on enduring love, born out of the necessity in seeking equality the same as in a hetero marriage."  Um hate to break it to you, there were many monogamous loving respectful relationships that still endure to this day, it was not all promiscuity.  And really?

"Gay legal partners or unions were demanded because the dying partners weren't allowed their lovers at the hospital beds because they weren't ruled as family."  Hell yes they want the same protections under the law as any other heterosexual relationship.

"That is the basis of the societal pressure that began and determined the now modern gender narrative from one type of happiness seeking into another. That shows real fluidity, too, I am thinking."  OMG, I don't know where to begin......

Ruby Rose is one example among millions of LGBTQIA individuals.

The rest of your post is so far out there that I am not even going to bother other than to say, I hope some day you make it to the 21st century with your beliefs of the LGBTQIA community.

There are gay people - get over yourself and accept reality.

Mindhunt

1.The point about sexual fluidity is that it is a theory. Unproven. It's popular because it sure makes anyone feel good at any given point in time, all questions being put aside. This would be another POV: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/24/kinsey-was-wrong-sexuality-isn-t-fluid.html

2. Yes, people make choices about sexual gender partners all the time. For any and all reasons. Does that make sense and does it provide happiness to do so? You seemed to miss that whole aspect and it is really the driving point.

3. You are confusing 21st century thought that must only be liberal views of thought.

4. I never said AIDS was responsible for promiscuity. I know how AIDS started. Please reread what I actually did write and then we can revisit it, if desired.

5. I hate to break it to you, but you could do a simple Google search and find research with statistics concerning homosexual fidelty re: a successful marriage. I'd be interested in what you find to see if I found the same. Then come back and talk to me. What is even more interesting is comparing research done before 1982, and then after that date.

6. Gay marriage does not want itself to be a mirror of heterosexual marriage, that too, is a theme you can read all about.

7. Of course the example I gave with Ruby Rose, was one example. This is an internet posting, not a thesis paper. I was making a point, but it isn't one that a liberal view wants to acknowledge. It should not be seen as a singular thought in a vacuum. So again, your response is typical. I don't write to change minds, I write to explain my own.

 8. As for your last statement. I am not surprised, but OK and whatever. We shall see how it goes with the pursuit of happiness, in the 21st Century, now that the growing gender lists and accompanying sexual attractions push home the idea that the sexual end goal seeks for itself to only be constant, and enjoyably boundless. This is managed best within a marriage suited for compatibility functions and one that works without fidelity. Read all about it; Google it.

 

@vk4    That was never the point. I never denied gay people exist. 

But you have a problem with their existence, hence the " get over yourself" part.

@vk4 I do not have a problem with gays existing. That would be stupid, since they have always existed and will always continue to exist. They exist as a tiny portion of the population. What I have a problem with and I have said it before, just maybe not to some here on this thread—— is the way the 21st Century liberal presentation of non-heterosexuality and attraction is done as a 50/50 proposition.

There are other aspects too, but unless someone actually picks up on those, I'll keep them to myself for now. Less ideas for antagonistic people to misconstrue, just because that is what they want to do.

Cool you have no problem with the spectrum of human sexuality, you just have a problem with the liberal media.

 

Have you considered changing the channel? 

 

There is always Fox news, Briebart (SPL?), Alex Jones.... you have lots of alternatives to the liberal media to save you this angst.

You don't have to comment on my posts, either, if you have no real interest. Your suggestions are just dumb. I will be kind and leave out the snarky comment I just deleted.

The Liberal references are borne out from observations.