... you know you can't just say "this isn't anti-LBGT" and then say something biphobic. But aside from that. And aside from how truly pathetic the notion "marriage is the goal" is... Your logic is nonsensical.
"People attracted to both genders cannot exist because they can't marry both at the same time" is bananaballs nonsense. Do you think gay people didn't exist before gay marriage was legalized in the states? That interracial couples existed before Loving v. Virginia?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Since this was hollered: The user ^^ was already banned for this and other comments.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Bisexuality just means you are attracted to both genders. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you act on both attractions at the same time. Signed, a Jewish non-practicing bisexual.
Edited by SkyCat32 Rawr.
^ Exactly. As a practicing Christian and non-practicing (love that term, thanks Sky Cat) bi-or-pan (still figuring it out) -sexual, if I am ever going to get married it will be to a guy, but Satan still has a broader range of people (a.k.a. not just guys) to use in his attempts to tempt me into infidelity (or until then, fornication).
Edited by Miss_Desperado If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.
Man, OMC's logic is so comically bad that according to them, Single-Target Sexuality is the only version of sexuality in the country. If he defines sexuality as "are you married to this person, because that's the sole purpose of romance" (which again, is hilariously sad and pathetic) then by extension that must be his belief.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Suggestion for new or alternative title: "Never Say Bi".
Edited by SpiritOfSahara Hide / Show Replies
This example:
"Brokeback Mountain averted this by having the main characters be (possibly) bisexual, but pandering to this trope has nevertheless led to the movie being marketed as a gay love story."
Whaaa...? The characters in the film are presented as closeted gay men who give in to social pressure by marrying women. How does it suggest they're bisexual? And what about it "being marketed as a gay love story"? That's exactly what it is!
TV's tendency to fall into this tends to be most apparent in adaptations. Take Pretty Little Liars, Emily is Bi in the books, but on TV she's pure Lesbian. The decision to do this is usually defended by saying it would otherwise have Unfortunate Implications that being gay is only a phase for high-school girls. (eyeroll)
Ali claims she is straight and was only messing with Emily when she kissed her, but she may have only been saying that to mess with Emily.
Edited by MithrandirOlorin
It stands to reason that it's automatically harder to prove that someone is bisexual, because this requires you to either explicitly state their orientation (a violation of "Show, Don't Tell") or have them in at least two relationships (within a space of time sufficient to register on the viewer's attention span, which may not be comparable to that of a goldfish, but certainly can't be counted on to be aware of events from three seasons ago). Thusly, one picture of Miss X and Mr. Y kissing demonstrates that Miss X is androphilic and Mr. Y is gynophilic, without need to break immersion (almost said "insertion" there, how Freudian) by just up and saying that they're attracted to each other. If one of the characters is actually bi, you then need to show another kiss to prove it, so the revelation inherently requires more setup.
Dunkies addict
I was thinking: in the past few seasons, female bisexual characters (yes, partially for fanservice, but frankly, I don't think the widespread positive reaction is as strong a factor as the relative infrequency of a negative one) haven't been that uncommon, but male bisexuals have. Currently, only a few examples reflect this, but I think it's run very deep in our culture, and the description should be rewritten to reflect it.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
Diversion
Why was the second point below deleted? The language is somewhat ambiguous. "thingies" could be referring to sexual organs or sexual orientation. It's probably the latter, but the quoted portion below goes on about how all the possible interactions of said organs have been charted.
- This
newspost from PennyArcade plays the trope absolutely 100% straight.
- Unless, of course, "thigies" refers to the man-bits and lady-bits.
Every possible intersection of ding-dongs and hoo-has has been charted, mapped, and inverted, and each permutation of the above has been pontificated on for as long as the material components of physical love have been in circulation.
- Unless, of course, "thigies" refers to the man-bits and lady-bits.
Read the second post down, as indicated by the parenthetical. That's almost certainly what the original poster was referring to, and renders the second point irrelevant.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
I am a victim of the symptoms of this trope. I do not believe bisexuals exist in a monogamous world. Sexuality is not the end goal. Marriage is. Logically speaking, you cannot be married to both. As such, I see sexuality in the monogamous presentation. In other countries with polygamy, this is permissible. That being said, I hate having to make this disclaimer, but this post is not anti-LGBTQ+. Just a contrary viewpoint based on current social dynamics of marriage.
Yowie Wowee. LET ME IN! #Try Again Hurt #Heal Hide / Show Replies