Super straight on tiktok
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Well, yes, that's without question, but I wondering if the improvements I've seen recently were significant. I seem to have seem media move recently to the more realistic, I'm not sure how much though.
Is it, though? The first is a description of how things currently are, the second a value judgement.
What I've seen is more feminism. The frankly irresponsible news reporting that they've been doing in Finnish (online) media found itself out of the problem that as e-sports is on the rise, all of the players are men. Normalization of OnlyFans, IG and TikTok "careers", and simping that makes those possible (though advertisers have found IG pretty well nowadays) puts girls' bodies for sale and sees it as "liberating" or "empowering". Commodification of relationships, yahoo.
Now our media portrayals of so called normal relationships are generally very equitable. Regularly if the man tries to raise the stakes he gets treated like a slimebag, and the assertive/passive dichotomy is rarely if ever admired. Sometimes the woman in turn wonders if she's doing enough in the relationship because the spark seems to be gone. And so on and so forth. However, I also think this is a conscious choice on the creators' part, and doesn't translate to attitudes in real life. Most young lads dream about commanding the assertive heterosexuality someone like Don Draper does (James Bond is much less consistent and maybe a bit too sexist pre-Moore). The #MeToo counter to this is of course depictions of unequal relationships with women as the victims of... whatever feminists can think about from sexual assault to a mean comment about their reading glasses.
The fundamental principle of denying people the freedom to get off to what they prefer without unwarranted intrusions is shared between these two things, which is the core problem with both of them, out of which all other tangential ills stem. If we fix this judginess and discouraging of other people to be happy in their own way, free from oppression and judgement, all those other issues go away.
And I dunno how calling something boring is anything BUT a subjective opinion-based value judgement so any attempt to claim it to be factual is defacto to state ones opinion as fact while trying to be sneaky about it in hopes people won't notice.
Yes. And for those that do internalise, the resultant anxiety and low self-esteem that they cannot match up to it, their unrealistic expectations of what their partners are like, a focus on the wrong key attributes to make themselves attractive, all combinng to thereby stymie their own ability to start and maintain healthy relationships.
Who said anything about people being bad.
This isn't a moral judgement. It never was. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is for heterosexuals to think anyone is mad about not being able to sleep with them. I don't care if you personally are the greatest lover in the universe, it will still not be worth anyone's time to find out because heterosexuals, on the whole, are not worth anyone's time.
Y'all want the right to air your neurotic fixation with other people's genitals, but you can't handle me telling you that you sound boring. If you don't want to fuck me or people like me, why does it matter to you anyway? I'm sure you have a very sexually fulfilling life to live.
Fits right in, doesn't it.
How many chips on each shoulder are you carrying there?
...you really are just an abused bigot. I truly am sorry life has given you an inescapable warped view of sex.
God, why do I keep following my notifications back into this garbage fire thread
Why are you saying it like it's a choice. If it is such a bad thing as you purport it to be, and if people don't choose their sexuality, isn't it like a handicap? Aren't you being ableist in some sense, if your views are to be internally consistent? Or is it ok to do that against straight people or something?
I dunno man, I think your attitude drips with with attributes that you'd jump at criticizing if someone was leveraging them at other sorts of folk. This is only as far as the "empathy" that is touted often goes, only as far as it needs to to bash someone over the head with, never to actually help them too.
Last edited:
You can't be ableist about culture. This thread (after the initial superstraight meme) is not about a lot of things that some people really REALLY seem to want it to be.
Let's have an example, one of the straightest things I can imagine: saving yourself for marriage. Yes, going to the other extreme. Even today there are people that choose to do it and only have that one partner for their entire lives. I find that a spectacularly stupid thing to do to yourself. Why would you raise the act of sex to such astronomical heights that you have to tie it into marriage (which is an extremely important thing for most people)? Boring isn't enough to describe it. Even comparing myself and somebody like that we'd have completely different ideas about sex, and my ideal is still far from promiscuous.
Now that's not a very good example of modern straight culture because it's rare, however it's a simple idea. It's also something that everybody at least briefly thinks about. The go-to counterargument to this is that if we asked these couples how they view their sex life many would tell us it's the best that they could ever hope for. Their perspective is just that different.
Ok, in this thread we have other more relevant examples and some of those can be contested or maybe they are archaic and changing. Responses with accusations, personal attacks, strawmen, and whataboutism display a clear lack of understanding what this thread is about.
Those cross-forum meta-threads about bans are much more dramatic, but this topic is more personal to more people.
If it's a culture you can't help being a part of, so not stuff like national idenity or religion, but something that's more intrinsic and not taught from the outside, it's not any different. Otherwise you're making the argument for gay conversion therapy, the whole "we don't ask you to stop being gay, just don't do gay shit!" thing. Only you are substituting it with straight and not gay and are filling in random irrelevant stuff into the "straight shit" space.
Saving yourself for marriage is about religion, not about being straight. It's just that if you're gay you're likely already at odds with religions so you're less likely to follow their tenets, one of which is saving yourself. Correlation =/= causation.
You can ask anybody to stop doing "gay shit". You can't ask a blind person to stop doing "blind shit". See the difference? Your take on culture is simply wrong. Culture is real. It's everywhere around us. I could reject parts of my culture if I wanted to but I would outcast myself in the process. Like, if I rejected straight culture, people would naturally assume that I would be queer instead, but alas I'd actually just have nothing. After all, straight guys who exclaim to totally not care about sex are fucking liars.
Yes, and religion is a lot about being straight. It has a huge influence on our sociocultural landscape. Anyway, saving yourself is rare even among religious people in the West. I underlined that other sentence because it is so wrong it's almost surreal. There is no way whatsoever that any of our current mainstream religions would start marrying same-sex couples while preaching them to save themselves for the wedding night. If "between a man and a woman" gets dropped so does caring about V-cards.
Nicely glossed over three paragraphs of my reply with an oversimplified take on religion.
My point wasn't that you can't do it but that it's wrong for very obvious reasons, if that wasn't clear.
Tons of things are about being straight but they're not an element of it. It's just something that flows naturally out of straight people being the progenitors of those things. If someone imagines a god in their image and they're straight the god will be straight too. Also same reason most of em are men too. Especially back in the days when people came up with those religions there was a practical reason for them being for straight people, since they needed a lot of kids because wars were waged in such a way where body count meant everything, so if you had a lot of gay people you had a sub-optimal allocation of resources. The religion just conveniently served as a tool to push people in that direction. Even in ancient Greece which is mentioned often as having lots of gay folks, it was actually lots of bi folks, women were for kids and boys for fun, something like that was the saying. Men were thought of as the ultimate in beauty and women were thought of as defective men so it's easy to see why in such a culture people would be bi.
And I dunno what you read while underlining my sentence but my point was that religion already rejects those people so they're not tied to its tenets just by virtue of being gay to begin with, hence they're less likely to save themselves for marriage, so it's not an element of them not being straight but of not being religious that they don't save themselves as much as straight people do, because more of them also are religious too.
I'm pretty sure the world's most popular god, as imagined by straights, would best be described as asexual given His lack of wife, girlfriend, etc. Even His earthly son didn't have a romantic / sexual partner (overtly, at least).
This is unlikely to be true. They probably didn't like gay people for no other reason than that they were a) rare and b) different. For much the same reason, left-handedness and red hair were often viewed negatively, too. For instance, the term "sinister" comes from the root for "left-handed".