Otherkin? Never heard of that before, would you mind enlightening me?TheDarkEricDraven said:
Well, by definition, no. That is not possible. You are supposed to be sexually attracted to both men and women. If you find the image of a man appealing, but not sexually appealing, you are not bi. I'm not officially studied on the issue, though, so someone else might have a better answer for you.Ironic Pirate said:
Same.Ilikemilkshake said:
The "LGBT societies" of most schools are called "Gay-Straight Alliances." There's nothing really exclusive about them. An example of where the term LGBT might be used appropriately is in the "LGBT rights movement," because straight people aren't an oppressed sexual minority. Furthermore, renaming gay pride parades to sexual freedom parades would dilute the message, because the rights of furries aren't really a major concern of anyone right now, I think.Images said:
Yeeeah. weren't quite getting the message really. I think the key word was WHATEVER. Whatever someone is. I mereley named furries as an off the wall example. My point was, if a whole city centre is being shut down for a parade about sexuality it should be a celebration of everyone's sexuality. Surely straight people, gay people, people who get off on midget love all deserve to be celebrated?ABAP said:
Actually they do its an X I think.jboking said:How is it outdated as a scale of sexual orientation? I feel it should probably include Asexual, which it doesn't, but how else?Nimcha said:The Kinsey Scale is also very old and quite outdated.
I'd think so. In the UK a discrimination bill was passed which covers religious beliefs, race, nationality, sexual orientation (LGB)... the usual suspects in other words. However, around the time a female teenager was savagely beaten to death by a group of people purely because she was a goth and dared to be walking home with her boyfriend. Some alternative press such as Bizarre Magazine ran campaigns to have discrimination based on physical appearance to be included in the bill but politicians and much of the public at large would have none of it. Obviously the rights of anyone who looks different are of no concern to many, including groups who are discriminated against themselves, who should really know better. Instead of the unusual united grouping that saw religious people supporting gays and the like, people of alternative appearance were shunned.Images said:
Not exactly, you don't have to like the idea of physical intimacy, same as you can be celibate and straight.jboking said:
It's not that I don't find them sexually appealing, just that I don't like anal or oral sex. Don't like that with girls, either, it just doesn't appeal to me.jboking said:
I suspect that's due to people settling down with a single partner as they get older. There could be a lot of bi people out there who are happily in gay or straight relationships, leaving you with no reason whatsoever to assume that they are in fact bisexual.Qitz said:
I don't think there's a legitimate argument in favour of their treatment. It's just a number of prejudices coming out. Some of them will be assumed to be bi for the attention, some will be assumed to be gay but not willing to admit to it, and some will be assumed to be straight but there to try and get with the ones who are 'bi for the attention'. There's also possibly some bitterness, given that anyone with a broader spectrum of attraction can (should they choose to) avoid the negative attention that homosexuality sadly attracts.jboking said:
I don't think outcasts consider themselves to be part of the LGBT groups. They consider themselves wholly other. It would be more appropriate to just call them outcasts as opposed to outcasts of outcasts of outcasts, as it implies they belong categorically to two other groups..No. said: