What Does Everyone Think of a Poly LGBTQ Space Here?

Ravenscroft

Banned
I'd like to see someone lead from the front. Like, anyone.

The case has been implied that "lots of people will use it."

Nobody's yet started a thread (maybe in Fireplace) about "the unique challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ people."

Nobody's launched a new Social Group.

Or resurrected Gay, Bi-, Queer Poly with even one post (since last April).

Lively traffic in a relevant thread/group would be proof of concept, & support the case for a seperate (but equal :eek:) super-Forum with only one Forum (like Site Usage) or a Forum in general Polyamory. (However, as any registered user can jump in, I'm baffled as to how this would be any different from just starting a thread. :eek:)

If people want a clubhouse, they ought to get together & build one, rather than ask that someone build it for them.

If they don't think it's worth the effort, then it's probably not worth the effort.
 

ref2018

Bastard of Young
Staff member
If people want a clubhouse, they ought to get together & build one, rather than ask that someone build it for them.

If they don't think it's worth the effort, then it's probably not worth the effort.


It reminds me of when someone writes a persuasive article or speech and people moan, "but it doesn't express *all* points of view!!!"

What that means is it doesn't express *their* point of view.

If you want an article or book that expresses *your* point of view, write one.

/end
 

Sentinel

New member
I guess the question is: 'why have a separate space?'

In the broad community, there is still an element of derogation or ostracism of LGBTIQ people. I would like to think that you don't experience that here and that you don't need to protect yourself from discriminatory views. Indeed, I think for many people it would be hard to be both polyamorists and stridently male-female oriented. I'm a male that has only ever been attracted to females, but partly because of my experience over the past decade loving more than one person, I see that as a personal choice and not something that carries any moral or genetic weight. But: If you feel you could post more safely and honestly in other areas, then yes i strongly support a new area.

Sentinel
 
Last edited:

Magdlyn

Well-known member
Raven, as far as I can tell, you're straight, at best homocurious. Why do you want a separate LBG or Transgender/Queer space more than we do?

I will not guess out loud.
 

ref2018

Bastard of Young
Staff member
Raven, as far as I can tell, you're straight, at best homocurious. Why do you want a separate LBG or Transgender/Queer space more than we do?

I will not guess out loud.

He doesn't "want" one. He wants people who want one to stop talking about it and start doing something about it. It seems to me right in line with what some other folks have suggested, with actual suggestions on ways to make it happen.

That's just how it seems to me. I'm sure he'll explain it too.
 

Rising

New member
Hi PurpleSun,

I would use a queer space on the forum. And that is my favourite RuPaul quote, apart from "If you can't love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else?". Thanks for posting!
 

Ravenscroft

Banned
Raven, as far as I can tell, you're straight, at best homocurious.
A couple years back, I told the story of how I was denounced as being "not very bi" because I hadn't recently had more than flirtations with guys. Good to see that someone's watching our "dance cards" to keep the riffraff out. :rolleyes:

I was on the planning committee of the BECAUSE Conference back in 1994. Makes this kind of a "you tell me" moment, eh?

The HuffPo article tickles me, because I served on the committee with Lou, & Victor is a puffed-up peafart who did nothing at the beginning, either preparation or execution, but claim credit. ;) Actually, an early impetus was a zine, Politically Incorrect, that he sorta co-edited with Elise Matthesen, the title referring to how bisexuality was treated as "on the fence" rather than a valid relational choice of itself.
________________

As for the underlying question:

If one or two people want to start something, then (per my clubhouse analogy) they ought to START something rather than playing the "if you build it, they will come" myth, emphasis you.

The first clubhouse will probably be small & rickety. If enough people show up, though, it proves a large, solid clubhouse deserves consideration.

I'm not totally satisfied that "bisexual" is somehow interchangeable with "homosexual" or "queer" or anything else. (Again, as detailed in previous posts.) But so long as everyone remains aware that they're NOT somehow "pretty much the same thing" (like polyamory & swinging :eek:), what's the harm?
 

JaneQSmythe

Active member
I identify as bi. I have never once felt included in an lgbtq+ space. Ever. I am in two long term relationships with men, so I guess I'm not gay enough or something because I have the safety of appearing straight - ignoring the fact that every person in my life is aware of my orientation.

This. Exactly.:(

I am fairly asocial so I am more resigned than bitter, but still...

Being able to "pass" is one of the many privileges of being - white, married (to a member of the opposite sex), monied, educated, intelligent, professional, not-young, not-old, not-fat, able-bodied, American. In my life, the privileges associated with these attributes outweigh the risks associated with being - female, bisexual, poly (and being female is the only attribute obvious enough to engender any threat from strangers).

PS. Sorry if this is a non sequitur - I've been contemplating the concept of "privilege" with regards to my own life recently, so that is where my head is today. (My therapist doesn't like the "it could be so much worse" meme when it comes to minimizing the "problems" in my life, but, in the grand scheme of things ... my issues are relatively minor.)
 
Last edited:

Ravenscroft

Banned
I've considered some of these issues, for instance in the thread What is bisexuality? Such discussions are clearly worth having.

The upside of all-inclusiveness (in this instance "LGBTQ+") is that anyone can walk in the door.

The downside of all-inclusiveness (in this instance "LGBTQ+") is that anyone can walk in the door.

We all have LOADS of commonality, & it's great that there's so much communication & so much willingness to share our experiences "across the borders" even as we maintain the borders.

Bi issues are not homosexual issues. Gay issues aren't lesbian issues. Non-het isn't interchangeable with nonmonogamy isn't interchangeable with leather. The trans & intersex** might have any form of sexual expression.

This site, these forums, are already intended as all-inclusive. Its sub-areas are generally all-inclusive. Creating a whole new sub-area in order to make it all-inclusive... well, it's clearly a well-trod path already.

It is exclusion that makes something interesting or valuable.

Aside from politeness, the only way to create a boundary on this site is in the Social Groups.
________________
** -- the term "hermaphrodite" has fallen into disfavor as being "stigmatizing," but I've seen "intersex" abused so much that I detest its imprecision, much like "queer." In any case, those who are born with some degree of male AND female genitalia is much more common than most people are aware. It's not so trendy as "bi" & "poly" & such because being intersex is not something that can be merely claimed, tried on for size.
 

AutumnLeaves

New member
Sexuality is not demonstrative. Many people know whether they are straight or not without ever having had sex with anyone else. A bisexual person certainly doesn't have to try sexual contact with various genders to figure out whether they're attracted to more than one gender.
 

anamikanon

New member
I don't like the idea of a separate space. They are people just like everyone else. Why limit them to a corner? Everyone here has a unique matrix of choices on multiple fronts and we have more in common than differences needing separation. We all yearn for something, feel hurt, feel excluded, insulted, included, secure, insecure... for very similar reasons. One kind of person can hold insights for another - or at least simply develop a broader worldview from the exposure.

Protected spaces make sense in a space where dominant views subsume others. In a space where everyone's individuality is respected and addressed directly, separate spaces sound like ghettoization to me. And unnecessary adoption of hetero defaults as the "real" "space". Why separate a few to go and talk elsewhere? Are they not unique, the same as us? Kind of thing. Who here would judge a woman for becoming a man or falling in love with a woman. That crap doesn't happen here. And if it does, there are enough of us who'd address it immediately and make a learning example out of it. This is a strong, inclusive space.
 

ImaginaryIllusion

Administrator
Staff member
Apologies, but "many" is at best a weasel word.

This statement invalidates the experience of people who come to self-realization later in life, when presented with possibilities of which they'd previously not been fully aware.

"Many" is just a word, and the statement is simply an individual expressing their view... which is what this forum is for!
Be wary of trying to subvert language in order to manipulate the discussion.
 

AutumnLeaves

New member
In this context, "many" is "a large but indefinite number." It has nothing to do with people who have decided they're not straight before/after/while having sex with someone. And while "many" people could be described as knowing that they're straight before ever being involved in sex, "many" people can also be described as any sexual orientation. "Many" people are also questioning or change their minds as life goes on.

My point remains: you don't have to demonstrate your sexual orientation by having sex with anyone, much less justify YOUR orientation to someone else on the basis of who you have or haven't had sex with. "You" here being the general you, not "you" in specific.
 

ImaginaryIllusion

Administrator
Staff member
Admin note

Because this has come up elsewhere, I will re-iterate the official position at the moment as regards this idea of a separate space for particular identities.


This forum is built on the idea that anyone should be able to come in and talk about poly related subjects, with other poly related folks, to exchange ideas, and learn from each other as we all try to find our way through this way of living and loving.

As Mods, we operate to use minimal interference in that exchange of ideas. As such the structure of the forum is also built to have minimal necessary categories to keep exposure to other discussions as broad as possible, and are based on Subjects, rather than people! It also intends that the audience and the participants are as inclusive as possible as there's no area intended to restrict any group of people.

It's an online and relatively anonymous-ish forum, so the only identity you have here is what you chose to bring with you. The forum staff are under no obligation to mediate for anything based on those grounds.

As such... I will leave this thread open for further commenting a polite discussion as people feel inclined, but in the spirit of making informed choices, the notion of dividing the forum along reasons like this, are antithetical to it's purpose, and it is highly unlikely to be any reason compelling enough to sway from that course.
 
Top