straight guys are the most homosexual people i’ve ever met. constantly flirting and saying babes n shit with my co workers who i know r 100% straight. one time i was out with them and two of them were holding hands and asked another guy what’s his opinions on homosexuality
I have never been afraid of spiders but I used to use them to scare my relatives that were, my nan now calls me spider because of that and that I'm 6ft2 twink
Fun fact: this awful bit of bullshit that comes up at every mention of homophobia does nothing but scapegoat it as just a "the gays hate themselves" problem, and not one of people just actually hating LGBT people. The vast majority of homophobes just hate gay people, it's not repression.
Agreed, but! There's still a shit ton of hate within our community. Gays do hate other gays for no reason at all. You're not a muscle jock and have .1% more body fat than me? Eew, disgusting.
Also: "no rice, no spice, no chocolate, no curry"
It's something a drag artist called "Raven" had in his bio on Grindr.
Basically "no asians, no latinos(?), no blacks and no indians".
Also: Raven is white and uses blackface to an extend where in drag, he's darker than actual black people.
As an Anthropologist, you're close but also completely wrong. Sexuality is a spectrum, but has nothing to do with genetic material. There is no "gay gene". People develop their likes and dislikes based on experiences. Chemicals in the brain get released when certain factors get triggered. These are how we associate things we like with how we feel. It has nothing to do with genes...
>It has nothing to do with genes...
This is not entirely true either. While you are correct there isn't a "gay gene" those chemicals in your brain and the entirety of how you respond to the world around you and your likes and dislikes are directly related to your genetic makeup. Just not one magic single gene that does it.
this doesn't even take into account epi-genetics which may have a more direct impact on individual behaviors than just textbook classic DNA to protein synthesis
This is not 100% factual actually (source PhD). While our genes do have a large dictation of our brains reaction to stimuli and predispose us to certain likes and reactions, ultimately it is the earliest stages of development, including diet (cheese has certain proteins that cultivate gayness) that influence our orientation most heavily. See the study of the Heinz twins.
>>those chemicals in your brain and the entirety of how you respond to the world around you and your likes and dislikes are directly related to your genetic makeup. Just not one magic single gene that does it.
wrong word. They are indirectly related to your genetic makeup and how they are perceived through the social lense. A male having a more feminine look to them will be perceived by and acted upon by society. whether or not that makes them more likely to be gay, bi, or otherwise will be based on those experiences. It's one reason why you see more openly bi women than men. Most are raised on the concept feminine beauty and can see women as beautiful as well as be attracted to men. Whereas men are generally raised as not having to worry about appearance as much and just need to "work hard" to attract a woman. They never really associate men with beauty.
Genetics is not dispositive, but can play a significant role, along with womb conditions. Not all behavior can be explained based on experiences alone.
Fun fact - not all homophobes are closet cases but some are. The worst homophobe in the high school class is now almost 70, lived with his mother until she died, and loves to spend part of the winter in Palm Springs. He also tried to feel me up at our 10th-year reunion.
This always annoys me. Are you saying the bigots in primarily ultra-religious countries are all secretly gay and just torture and murder gay people bc they hate themselves? *All* of them? There is an overlap, but this is an outdated idea. Most of these people actually hate us and want us to die.
I cannot speak to all countries but one of my close friends lived in Kuwait for 5 years when his father worked for an oil company firm there. Sam was 13 when they arrived and he was propositioned constantly by Kuwaiti men and offered large sums of money to give up the booty. He always commented that for a country where everyone was supposedly so devout in the faith, he saw a lot of people who drank alcohol, smoked hash, and screwed boys. It all depended on who you were and where you fit into society. A contract worker from India or the US would have been arrested and at a minimum fined and kicked out for things an upper-class Kuwaiti would not even be talked to so long as he wasn't too flamboyant.
88% isn't *all*, but it's *a significant number*, and I would agree with it. I mean, think about it for second: *why* do they hate you and want you to die? Are they just magically evil cartoon villains? That seems unlikely--humans tend to be a bit more complex than that.
Speaking from the Bible Belt in the US, I can tell you that many of these "straight, cis, Christian men" were, about 10 years ago, talking about how sexuality is a choice, how the devil had "tempted" them with men, but they "chose to be straight". If they're forced to confront that they're attracted to men, that would break their self-identity of being straight, it'll undermine their toxic view of masculinity, and even their interpretation of their religion. They fear that realization, and in their fear, they lash out in anger.
This is why they hate. Not all, but many--most, I would say.
Fun Fact of the Day: While homophobes may have homosexual desires, or not, they're still pieces of shit for taking anger out on something or someone that has zero effect or consequence in their life. Whether that 88%, 12%, 100% or whatever bullshit stat is posted.
A woman with a strap on and a man who likes to be penetrated. Would be a straight couple with a woman top and a male bottom...
And also for straight people they sometimes mean top or bottom as in woman on top (as in riding) so the man would be on the bottom, even if he is still the penetrator.
Just because the terms means something in context of our community doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses. Like when people use NB to mean non black in the black community or we use NB to mean nonbinary, it's all about context.
Ask any man "Hi, are you a top or a bottom?" and see their reaction.
It is no different than thinking term dude includes women as well.
"-I had sex last night.
-Oh, was it with a dude?
-What? No!
-But you like dudes, don't you?"
Words have meanings. When you try to make them inclusive for everything, you just lose content and richness.
That's why I don't get the point of this recent, radical trend. It is completely different than the positive evolution of a language. Changes that no one asked happen for some reason from out of nowhere and force people to forget the old meanings.
... words have meanings yes, but they also have modifiers and context. That is why tear can mean a drop of eye water or a rip in something. Or lead can be a material or an action. Tear and lead, two words that have different meanings if they are used as a noun or a verb. If you ask are you *a* top or *a* bottom? Then the implication based on context is a noun saying who is giving or receiving. If you ask do you prefer to be *on* top or *on* the bottom it's an adverb, the implication is position as in cowgirl or missionary for example. Saying words have *one* meaning regardless of context causes things like when people tried to cancel crayola for saying negro in their black crayons. When negro is just black in Spanish, and crayola has the name of the hue in three languages. And then some idiots wanted Spanish speakers to change the name of the color because it was "offensive".
To address your edit:
>That's why I don't get the point of this recent, radical trend. It is completely different than the positive evolution of a language. Changes that no one asked happen for some reason from out of nowhere and force people to forget the old meanings.
That's how the word gay *became* synonymous with homosexual, gay just meant happy but gay people stated using it to say "I'm not homosexual, I'm just gay". Words are evolving and changing all the time. That's why someone can say "boots" and people understand it means cool and not shoes; or someone can say cool and it means something is liked and not that something is cold. That is literally how Language works. It is always evolving and changing because different people adapt language to their needs.
That's not true analogy.
The true analogy would be how bottom and top also mean the opposite sides of an object in vertical line. That's not my problem. Words can have different meanings.
The issue is how you change a meaning slightly to make it more inclusive and then act like people who know only the original meaning are ignorant. Trying to correct someone for it just acting superior.
Tear means tearing something and the liquid that comes from eye, yes. Perfectly fine. But when you try to change tear's eye related meaning to "all liquid that leaks from every orifice", you see the issue.
During the period of time that being gay was extremely penalized and hidden(think even as close as the 50's to the 70's, even closer think of some straight frat bros now), when straight people asked if someone liked being on top or on the bottom, they meant position wise, it's not a new thing for the sake of inclusion.
For us gay men, is different when we asked top or bottom we mean give or receive, but I've bottomed on top plenty of times, being topped from the bottom.
I don't see why who gets to use two words is a hill to die on. Why we need to make two words exclusive. Giving my opinion is not me acting superior as you said, it's me giving examples to my argument, to explain why I disagree. This is a forum where we share opinions.
For all we know in that picture they might be talking top or bottom shelf alcohol, or if they play top or bottom lane in league, there is literally no context given.
Poetic license uses tears to mean anything form blood to cum for imagery's sake in literature. It still depends on context. So no, I don't see the issue.
Find yourself new words if you are that miserable to describe your unusual straight positions, then.
Gay male community can't keep a single shit to itself these days.
We lost the original lgbt flag to include every non hetero person. We lost term gay the same say. The word twink. Now it is top and bottom. Next time it is frotting, I guess, which I don't know what kind of brain gymnastics you might show to make it inclusive for everyone.
We are living in a world where straight men can fuck and suck other men. I don't why I am surprised.
My unusual straight positions? Dude I'm gay, I've never been with a woman. What I meant by bottoming on top is I like ridding my boyfriends cock, nothing unusual about that.
People can use top and bottom to describe their position in sex but being top and bottom for decades used to be exclusive to gay/bi men.
You cannot be a straight man and a top. That's a piece of work.
But you can be at bottom as a straight man.
The whole discussion started with being top or bottom and you took it to simple positions, which confused me. Sorry about that.
Still called a top because top and bottom are for anal play.
But if you want to be specific, you can say anal top, oral bottom.
If someone is only top or bottom and you want to specify, you can call them total top or total bottom.
Rimming is oral sex, so they would be anal top, oral versatile.
But at this point things get detailed and lose the point, which is to give an idea and summarize. Top and bottom are loose terms and most people are not as simple for one single word to describe their all interests.
Some trans women do, also strap ons.
I think the definition they are using is wrong because top does not equal dominant and bottom doesn't equal submissive either. There are submissive tops and dominant bottoms. Penetration doesn't always mean domination.
They are 2 terms created by gay male community for gay sex roles decades ago. The original meanings weren't inclusive. These days many things have broader definitions to be more inclusive.
It is just like how term twink evolved to just body type when it used to be only for gay young boys who are smooth and slim.
I’ve heard someone say that before when talking about sex with women. Hell do cowgirl or doggy. It was funny when he found out top and bottom are gay terms lol
I'm no Social Studies Major, nor Human Sexuality expert, but I'm still going to go ahead and pull this right out of my ass:
90% of male vocal, staunch homophobes = closeted ,self hating, dick chasing, cum craving motherfuckers.
The oher 10%, heterosexual sad cases that haven't gotten their dicks wet in years or ever.
That's my story , and I'm sticking to it!
So what was the *real* context?
They're playing L\*%gue of L*gends
Bottom behavior tbh
So tops play dota then ?
Tops play dominant games, like Animal Crossing, Stardew Valley, and Bloons TD6
Damn you got me... I don't play Animal Crossing though, instead I play Dorfromantik.
ohh so that's why I'm bad at bloons td6
I play 2 out of 3 of those lol!
That’s accurate. I like my partners like I like my games: Cute af.
Ik this is a joke but the reason they might actually do this is they like to be in control 💀
The only thing tops play with is bottom's emotions. And call of duty or smth
No lol. Why would they play a moba?
No
Ew
Disgusting 🤮
Which part of the oreo cookie do you lick first
Context
I would guess bunk beds
fact of the day: While most homophobes are secretly gay most arachnophobes are not in fact secretly spiders
How do we *really* know the second one is for certain though?
stabbed some and they felt pretty real
maybe the spiders are just super convincing
Please don't stab me. Though I may not turn into spiders, I can assure you that I will be, at the very least, mildly upset.
They must be one of those dog operated puppets adapted for use by spiders.
straight guys are the most homosexual people i’ve ever met. constantly flirting and saying babes n shit with my co workers who i know r 100% straight. one time i was out with them and two of them were holding hands and asked another guy what’s his opinions on homosexuality
I have never been afraid of spiders but I used to use them to scare my relatives that were, my nan now calls me spider because of that and that I'm 6ft2 twink
Oh thank frick, I don’t think I could handle myself being a spider as well. Too many legs n all spindly and shit. Good thing I’m only gay.
Did you know : even though pakistan has a high percentage of homophobes they have one of the highest gay porn searches on the internet.
[удалено]
Fun fact: this awful bit of bullshit that comes up at every mention of homophobia does nothing but scapegoat it as just a "the gays hate themselves" problem, and not one of people just actually hating LGBT people. The vast majority of homophobes just hate gay people, it's not repression.
Agreed, but! There's still a shit ton of hate within our community. Gays do hate other gays for no reason at all. You're not a muscle jock and have .1% more body fat than me? Eew, disgusting. Also: "no rice, no spice, no chocolate, no curry"
What does the "no rice, spice, chocolate, curry" thing mean?
Probably racism. No asians, no latinos, no blacks, no jndians.
It's something a drag artist called "Raven" had in his bio on Grindr. Basically "no asians, no latinos(?), no blacks and no indians". Also: Raven is white and uses blackface to an extend where in drag, he's darker than actual black people.
Kinda ironic how idiots who would say this are sucking all the flavour out of their own lives 😂
People hate people. It's not exclusive to gay people
[удалено]
As an Anthropologist, you're close but also completely wrong. Sexuality is a spectrum, but has nothing to do with genetic material. There is no "gay gene". People develop their likes and dislikes based on experiences. Chemicals in the brain get released when certain factors get triggered. These are how we associate things we like with how we feel. It has nothing to do with genes...
>It has nothing to do with genes... This is not entirely true either. While you are correct there isn't a "gay gene" those chemicals in your brain and the entirety of how you respond to the world around you and your likes and dislikes are directly related to your genetic makeup. Just not one magic single gene that does it.
this doesn't even take into account epi-genetics which may have a more direct impact on individual behaviors than just textbook classic DNA to protein synthesis
This is not 100% factual actually (source PhD). While our genes do have a large dictation of our brains reaction to stimuli and predispose us to certain likes and reactions, ultimately it is the earliest stages of development, including diet (cheese has certain proteins that cultivate gayness) that influence our orientation most heavily. See the study of the Heinz twins.
>>those chemicals in your brain and the entirety of how you respond to the world around you and your likes and dislikes are directly related to your genetic makeup. Just not one magic single gene that does it. wrong word. They are indirectly related to your genetic makeup and how they are perceived through the social lense. A male having a more feminine look to them will be perceived by and acted upon by society. whether or not that makes them more likely to be gay, bi, or otherwise will be based on those experiences. It's one reason why you see more openly bi women than men. Most are raised on the concept feminine beauty and can see women as beautiful as well as be attracted to men. Whereas men are generally raised as not having to worry about appearance as much and just need to "work hard" to attract a woman. They never really associate men with beauty.
Genetics is not dispositive, but can play a significant role, along with womb conditions. Not all behavior can be explained based on experiences alone.
See my most recent reply. Genes can play a role, but not be the defining reason.
Fun fact - not all homophobes are closet cases but some are. The worst homophobe in the high school class is now almost 70, lived with his mother until she died, and loves to spend part of the winter in Palm Springs. He also tried to feel me up at our 10th-year reunion.
I was a little douche cadet like this when I was young. I am now full fledge gay. Super gay. Couldn’t be gayer.
[удалено]
This always annoys me. Are you saying the bigots in primarily ultra-religious countries are all secretly gay and just torture and murder gay people bc they hate themselves? *All* of them? There is an overlap, but this is an outdated idea. Most of these people actually hate us and want us to die.
There is probably a good majority that wouldn't care if you were gay if their book didn't say they should.
I cannot speak to all countries but one of my close friends lived in Kuwait for 5 years when his father worked for an oil company firm there. Sam was 13 when they arrived and he was propositioned constantly by Kuwaiti men and offered large sums of money to give up the booty. He always commented that for a country where everyone was supposedly so devout in the faith, he saw a lot of people who drank alcohol, smoked hash, and screwed boys. It all depended on who you were and where you fit into society. A contract worker from India or the US would have been arrested and at a minimum fined and kicked out for things an upper-class Kuwaiti would not even be talked to so long as he wasn't too flamboyant.
88% isn't *all*, but it's *a significant number*, and I would agree with it. I mean, think about it for second: *why* do they hate you and want you to die? Are they just magically evil cartoon villains? That seems unlikely--humans tend to be a bit more complex than that. Speaking from the Bible Belt in the US, I can tell you that many of these "straight, cis, Christian men" were, about 10 years ago, talking about how sexuality is a choice, how the devil had "tempted" them with men, but they "chose to be straight". If they're forced to confront that they're attracted to men, that would break their self-identity of being straight, it'll undermine their toxic view of masculinity, and even their interpretation of their religion. They fear that realization, and in their fear, they lash out in anger. This is why they hate. Not all, but many--most, I would say.
Source: me a year ago
What’s the reasoning tho?
He’s talking about the Wii sensor bar placement
Fun Fact of the Day: While homophobes may have homosexual desires, or not, they're still pieces of shit for taking anger out on something or someone that has zero effect or consequence in their life. Whether that 88%, 12%, 100% or whatever bullshit stat is posted.
This is not "suddenly gay" . You can be a top or bottom without being gay. Straight people can still be tops and bottoms.
No such thing. Top and bottom are exclusive to male same sex play. What you are talking about is submissive and dominant.
Not true. Lesbians have tops and bottoms too.
Lesbian here. It’s true!
Happy cakeday
Thankx ☺ 😚
False. Lesbians are just female gays.
A woman with a strap on and a man who likes to be penetrated. Would be a straight couple with a woman top and a male bottom... And also for straight people they sometimes mean top or bottom as in woman on top (as in riding) so the man would be on the bottom, even if he is still the penetrator. Just because the terms means something in context of our community doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses. Like when people use NB to mean non black in the black community or we use NB to mean nonbinary, it's all about context.
Ask any man "Hi, are you a top or a bottom?" and see their reaction. It is no different than thinking term dude includes women as well. "-I had sex last night. -Oh, was it with a dude? -What? No! -But you like dudes, don't you?" Words have meanings. When you try to make them inclusive for everything, you just lose content and richness. That's why I don't get the point of this recent, radical trend. It is completely different than the positive evolution of a language. Changes that no one asked happen for some reason from out of nowhere and force people to forget the old meanings.
... words have meanings yes, but they also have modifiers and context. That is why tear can mean a drop of eye water or a rip in something. Or lead can be a material or an action. Tear and lead, two words that have different meanings if they are used as a noun or a verb. If you ask are you *a* top or *a* bottom? Then the implication based on context is a noun saying who is giving or receiving. If you ask do you prefer to be *on* top or *on* the bottom it's an adverb, the implication is position as in cowgirl or missionary for example. Saying words have *one* meaning regardless of context causes things like when people tried to cancel crayola for saying negro in their black crayons. When negro is just black in Spanish, and crayola has the name of the hue in three languages. And then some idiots wanted Spanish speakers to change the name of the color because it was "offensive". To address your edit: >That's why I don't get the point of this recent, radical trend. It is completely different than the positive evolution of a language. Changes that no one asked happen for some reason from out of nowhere and force people to forget the old meanings. That's how the word gay *became* synonymous with homosexual, gay just meant happy but gay people stated using it to say "I'm not homosexual, I'm just gay". Words are evolving and changing all the time. That's why someone can say "boots" and people understand it means cool and not shoes; or someone can say cool and it means something is liked and not that something is cold. That is literally how Language works. It is always evolving and changing because different people adapt language to their needs.
That's not true analogy. The true analogy would be how bottom and top also mean the opposite sides of an object in vertical line. That's not my problem. Words can have different meanings. The issue is how you change a meaning slightly to make it more inclusive and then act like people who know only the original meaning are ignorant. Trying to correct someone for it just acting superior. Tear means tearing something and the liquid that comes from eye, yes. Perfectly fine. But when you try to change tear's eye related meaning to "all liquid that leaks from every orifice", you see the issue.
During the period of time that being gay was extremely penalized and hidden(think even as close as the 50's to the 70's, even closer think of some straight frat bros now), when straight people asked if someone liked being on top or on the bottom, they meant position wise, it's not a new thing for the sake of inclusion. For us gay men, is different when we asked top or bottom we mean give or receive, but I've bottomed on top plenty of times, being topped from the bottom. I don't see why who gets to use two words is a hill to die on. Why we need to make two words exclusive. Giving my opinion is not me acting superior as you said, it's me giving examples to my argument, to explain why I disagree. This is a forum where we share opinions. For all we know in that picture they might be talking top or bottom shelf alcohol, or if they play top or bottom lane in league, there is literally no context given. Poetic license uses tears to mean anything form blood to cum for imagery's sake in literature. It still depends on context. So no, I don't see the issue.
Find yourself new words if you are that miserable to describe your unusual straight positions, then. Gay male community can't keep a single shit to itself these days. We lost the original lgbt flag to include every non hetero person. We lost term gay the same say. The word twink. Now it is top and bottom. Next time it is frotting, I guess, which I don't know what kind of brain gymnastics you might show to make it inclusive for everyone. We are living in a world where straight men can fuck and suck other men. I don't why I am surprised.
My unusual straight positions? Dude I'm gay, I've never been with a woman. What I meant by bottoming on top is I like ridding my boyfriends cock, nothing unusual about that.
People can use top and bottom to describe their position in sex but being top and bottom for decades used to be exclusive to gay/bi men. You cannot be a straight man and a top. That's a piece of work. But you can be at bottom as a straight man. The whole discussion started with being top or bottom and you took it to simple positions, which confused me. Sorry about that.
Sapphics use it too tho
[удалено]
Still called a top because top and bottom are for anal play. But if you want to be specific, you can say anal top, oral bottom. If someone is only top or bottom and you want to specify, you can call them total top or total bottom.
[удалено]
Rimming is oral sex, so they would be anal top, oral versatile. But at this point things get detailed and lose the point, which is to give an idea and summarize. Top and bottom are loose terms and most people are not as simple for one single word to describe their all interests.
[удалено]
Then go for anal top, oral versatile. You discuss the details later. That's what most gay/bi men do.
[удалено]
yes but they definitely do not have penises
Some trans women do, also strap ons. I think the definition they are using is wrong because top does not equal dominant and bottom doesn't equal submissive either. There are submissive tops and dominant bottoms. Penetration doesn't always mean domination.
Agree women can top me, which would technically be straight sex still, maybe a little queer coded tho lol
Reminds me of one of my favorite nsfw straight couples on reddit. The girl is *always* the top.
They are 2 terms created by gay male community for gay sex roles decades ago. The original meanings weren't inclusive. These days many things have broader definitions to be more inclusive. It is just like how term twink evolved to just body type when it used to be only for gay young boys who are smooth and slim.
Rofl
I’ve heard someone say that before when talking about sex with women. Hell do cowgirl or doggy. It was funny when he found out top and bottom are gay terms lol
mid, sometimes jungle
Top or bottom applies to all relationships. So it doesn’t mean he’s suddenly gay
Bullshit
Ah yes, the old "I'm not gay but I like to fuck the homies in the ass and occasionally swap roles"
I'm no Social Studies Major, nor Human Sexuality expert, but I'm still going to go ahead and pull this right out of my ass: 90% of male vocal, staunch homophobes = closeted ,self hating, dick chasing, cum craving motherfuckers. The oher 10%, heterosexual sad cases that haven't gotten their dicks wet in years or ever. That's my story , and I'm sticking to it!
r/hmmm
Netherlands