Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) It's pretty obvious, non? No. Not especially. Although I would be lying if I said I looked at it properly. Edited February 16, 2010 by EEVILMURRAY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 I was lying about it being subjunctive though. It's indicative. Perhaps my reading/confusing then as I don't particularly agree with the statement (or at least I don't believe its one or t'other option). No. C'mon, most of the letters are the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 Bisexuals: putting the B back in LGBT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 Bisexuals: putting the B back in LGBT tl;dr. The thing with bisexuality is that you can't really be politically bisexual. We had a debate about this at QueerCam - loads of people were in favour of dropping the B from the official name LGBT Campaigns, because they felt if you were Bi and in a position that you were campaigning for queer rights, you'd fall under the G category anyway, and to define yourself as bi would sort of take away from your conviction - sort of like "I'm only half queer". Probably motivated by biphobia, but it feels like a fair enough point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 So you're pro gay&trans and anti bi? Seems a bit...contradictory. Maybe its me and my "all is welcome because everyone's as equally shit as each other" state of being. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 Yeh..but if you're bisexual...then you're bisexual and thats a classification which I don't think should be dropped. If it was shortened to LGT then it could possible make bisexuals feel excluded ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 tl;dr. The thing with bisexuality is that you can't really be politically bisexual. We had a debate about this at QueerCam - loads of people were in favour of dropping the B from the official name LGBT Campaigns, because they felt if you were Bi and in a position that you were campaigning for queer rights, you'd fall under the G category anyway, and to define yourself as bi would sort of take away from your conviction - sort of like "I'm only half queer". Probably motivated by biphobia, but it feels like a fair enough point. There was a gay bloke in my sixth form who I overheard saying that he thought that there was no such thing as bisexuals, and you were either gay or straight. I personally thought it was very close minded considering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 I don't understand why the T is in LGBT. LGB relate to sexual orientation whereas T, that's gender dysphoria. No? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 sort of like "I'm only half queer". Technically you are. I feel what you're saying, "you're gay or you're not". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 Not really my opinions, just the general consensus amongst queer activists in Oxford. Although, the proposal to drop the B didn't pass because it was deemed a pointless act of semantics that only excluded people. I don't understand why the T is in LGBT. LGB relate to sexual orientation whereas T, that's gender dysphoria. No? This is the opinion of a lot of LGB people. But then LGB people can be so closed-minded. L,G,B and T are all related by gender, and gender roles. In my opinion, T is as essential to queerness as G or L, or B is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 This is the opinion of a lot of LGB people. But then LGB people can be so closed-minded. L,G,B and T are all related by gender, and gender roles. In my opinion, T is as essential to queerness as G or L, or B is. How are L/G, B related to gender? Saying they are related to gender roles and then saying T is essential to queerness is saying two separate things. And while I'm on it, I'd bang Asexuality in there; LGBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 There's lots of sexuality that you could argue to put within LGBT, personally I find T shouldn't be in there, not because I disagree with it, but from what I can see, know, opinion, it seems more a life style 'choice' ('choice' for lack of a better word) rather than as a choice of sexuality. Its a very confusing line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 I always felt the T was misplaced as well because of the same reasons as those Daft posted, but I also know that I know too little about it to actually know if I'm right. I just say "live and let live". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 16, 2010 Is it only me who finds this entire discussion joyfully ironic? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 19, 2010 Is it only me who finds this entire discussion joyfully ironic? Nope................... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 the outher week i was out with friends, we were meeting a mate of ours who is gay (but hasnt come out to every one yet) and my mate turner let out possibly the funniest sentence ever. "I just don't understand how you can be gay when there are so many fit lasses about" hes a good lad but we dont hang around with him for his intelect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 I turned down a threesome proposition. And both the guys were really hot. I have such regrets. I was sitting down with my friend Kate, because the music had hit a bad patch, and I kept making eye contact with this ridiculously hot guy who was sitting kinda diagonally across from us. Kate left to go to the toilet and then he and his friend came over and we started chatting. I don't really understand if they are a couple or not, but they both seemed pretty interested in me. I think their names were Simon and Nick, but I didn't really hear the "Nick" properly, and didn't want to ask again. Chatting led to dancing - lots of grinding. I felt really self-conscious because I was wearing really tight trousers (they used to fit fine, but I've put on weight), and the crotch is really unforgiving, in that if anyone made a point of looking it was obvious I was extremely aroused. Then I left them for a while, and when I bumped into them again they asked me: "Do you want to come back and hang out with us?". I chickened out though, and said I was too tired (which is true - I had less than 2 hours sleep last night). There's no I in threesome. I have such regrets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 I have such regrets. I'm sure they do too Where about was it - any chance you'll bump (or grind) into them again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 I'm sure they do too Where about was it - any chance you'll bump (or grind) into them again? Most possibly. I think they're at Oxford Brookes, so I'll no doubt bump into them again. It's just the question of whether I actually want to have a threesome. Of course I want to have a threesome. But its a bit... slaggy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 By the sounds of how many different guys you keep getting with not to mention grindings and facesucking, you don't exactly seem like an innocent virgin Mary. Go for eet. Just don't give out explicit details on here after. Family friendly forum! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 Of course I want to have a threesome. But its a bit... slaggy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 Most possibly. I think they're at Oxford Brookes, so I'll no doubt bump into them again. It's just the question of whether I actually want to have a threesome. Of course I want to have a threesome. But its a bit... slaggy... Wouldn't be that slaggy, I "know" plenty of people who have tried that. After all you have the right to experiment. I suppose as long as you are sensible, and you seem sensible enough to me, and everyone wears everything they need to wear then you minimize the risk of anything. Then again I suppose that goes with all encounters, multiple people or otherwise, and only a complete idiot would think otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 Most possibly. I think they're at Oxford Brookes, so I'll no doubt bump into them again. It's just the question of whether I actually want to have a threesome. Of course I want to have a threesome. But its a bit... slaggy... But seriously, I never saw you as the type to worry what other people may think. Its your life, if you want to (although it seems you were unsure at the time) then do it Youth, and particularly during uni years, is about finding yourself. Experiences shape you, the good as bad. But as Fresh says, make sure you bag it before you shag it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 Yeah condoms are so essential. Although, I'm crying because of this. Apparently it was a group of Christians (heard from my friend Eloise, who is female welf rep at Teddy Hall). Quite possibly the worst, most irresponsible and stupid political demonstration ever. I stupidly didn't get numbers either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 20, 2010 Moral of the story: If you want to make sure nothing ever happens to you, buy your own condoms or make sure you check them before you use them. You need to check them for the date and kite mark anyway. But still, its a rotten thing to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
