[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Oh yeah all those asexuals that are thrown out and killed for their sexuality

Well asexuals are not publicized because there is less way to do so as they can still be in a relationship with the opposite gender and people just consider it to be a 'normal relationship' as others have no knowledge of this. It's a sexuality that people have really little knowledge of generally and I've gotten plenty of the 'weird' and 'not normal' comments when I've told people. Just because it's less common doesn't make it less valid.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by caprimint

Well asexuals are not publicized because there is less way to do so as they can still be in a relationship with the opposite gender and people just consider it to be a 'normal relationship' as others have no knowledge of this. It's a sexuality that people have really little knowledge of generally and I've gotten plenty of the 'weird' and 'not normal' comments when I've told people. Just because it's less common doesn't make it less valid.

I completely agree, i think people are quite ignorant about the idea of asexuality (a lot of people suggest it isnt real, and that people are celibate or frigid etc instead).. I dont see why it cant be part of an acronym, especially now that most heterosexuals are widely accepted in this lgbt community under ally in the lgbttqqiaap acronym.

Not too keen on the acronym in the OP though I'll be honest.. that does seem more to do with sex than sexuality

Actually roughly 1% of people identified as asexual in the 1950s on the Kinsey scale, and national census records shows that the figure has barely changed

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

when will the bondage anal loving straights get some love and a letter?



(seeking justice, for a friend)

Anal, huh? I'm beginning to see your forum name in a surprising new light

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Withano

Actually roughly 1% of people identified as asexual in the 1950s on the Kinsey scale, and national census records shows that the figure has barely changed

more than I'd expect

[Crimson Dynamo]

i actually thought this thread was about people laughing (true story) as in aaaaggsdhjhasbhawbwbcliabc

[Beso]

What if you just want a wee wank now and again?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

What if you just want a wee wank now and again?

wanker springs to mind

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Withano

I completely agree, i think people are quite ignorant about the idea of asexuality (a lot of people suggest it isnt real, and that people are celibate or frigid etc instead).. I dont see why it cant be part of an acronym, especially now that most heterosexuals are widely accepted in this lgbt community under ally in the lgbttqqiaap acronym.

Not too keen on the acronym in the OP though I'll be honest.. that does seem more to do with sex than sexuality

Actually roughly 1% of people identified as asexual in the 1950s on the Kinsey scale, and national census records shows that the figure has barely changed

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by caprimint

Well asexuals are not publicized because there is less way to do so as they can still be in a relationship with the opposite gender and people just consider it to be a 'normal relationship' as others have no knowledge of this. It's a sexuality that people have really little knowledge of generally and I've gotten plenty of the 'weird' and 'not normal' comments when I've told people. Just because it's less common doesn't make it less valid.

Originally Posted by Withano

I completely agree, i think people are quite ignorant about the idea of asexuality (a lot of people suggest it isnt real, and that people are celibate or frigid etc instead).. I dont see why it cant be part of an acronym, especially now that most heterosexuals are widely accepted in this lgbt community under ally in the lgbttqqiaap acronym.

Not too keen on the acronym in the OP though I'll be honest.. that does seem more to do with sex than sexuality

Actually roughly 1% of people identified as asexual in the 1950s on the Kinsey scale, and national census records shows that the figure has barely changed

LGB(T) as term came from activists, I.e people that had to fight for equality, excuse me if I’m wrong but there’s not many places where asexual people aren’t seen as equal

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

wanker springs to mind

It does need a w squeezed in somewhere.

[y.winter]

I find it quite ridiculous and stupid, as someone described it before - LGBTQWERTY.
People with too much time on the internet looking to label every part of their personality and overall busy with turning themselves into a cluster of nouns instead of actually doing something useful and being a human being who happens to love certain things.

[Beso]

That.

[Crimson Dynamo]

|Its people who feel marginalised by society trying to get importance tbh

[Jack_]

I've thought about this a few times before, but I actually think a lot of this kind of thing is a fascinating example of the Foucauldian notion of reverse discourse. For reference:

This new persecution of the peripheral sexualities entailed an incorporation of perversions and a new specification of individuals.

...

Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.

(The History of Sexuality, pp. 42-43)

There is no question that the appearance in nineteenth-century psychiatry, jurisprudence, and literature of a whole series of discourses on the species and subspecies of homosexuality, inversion, pederasty, and "psychic hermaphrodism" made possible a strong advance of social controls into this area of "perversity"; but it also made possible the formation of a "reverse" discourse: homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or "naturality" be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified.

(p. 101)

So, in essence, these people would be trying to claim (or reclaim) their kinks as an identity category, and demand their legitimacy in the community.

Rather ironically, Foucault himself was a (gay) sadomasochist

Anyway...personally, I don't really care if people wish to expand the acronym for their own purposes, it's not as if it's going to catch on colloquially. Indeed, with every letter it just becomes harder to remember. Though I do think the 'Q' is worthwhile, certainly the 'I' isn't talked about nearly enough, and I could be persuaded that the 'A' is valuable too. Of course the simplest method to condense all of these is just to type LGBT+ and be done with it

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Smithy

LGB(T) as term came from activists, I.e people that had to fight for equality, excuse me if I’m wrong but there’s not many places where asexual people aren’t seen as equal

I agree to an extent, the original LGBT was a beautiful thing, but I'd say that acronym has survived on its own and is still used regularly to describe the inequality that they face. The letters after that is more to do with community and inclusivity I'd imagine (the majority of heterosexual people also fit under the acronym I mentioned) and I think thats a brilliant, yet separate thing. And I think that way because views like the one below are pretty prominent. 'Asexuals (and the etc) cant be included into the community because theyre just looking for nouns instead of doing something useful'. Its a bit ridiculous, and its excellent that they have been included despite views like that.

Originally Posted by y.winter

I find it quite ridiculous and stupid, as someone described it before - LGBTQWERTY.
People with too much time on the internet looking to label every part of their personality and overall busy with turning themselves into a cluster of nouns instead of actually doing something useful and being a human being who happens to love certain things.

[Jamie89]

[Jamie89]

I don't really see the harm in any of it, if anything I suppose it's a good sign that people who maybe in the past wouldn't have wanted to be associated now do? Shows how 'normal' we've become. I think a better approach though would not to have acronyms at all, maybe just use something like Queer as a catch all and use the words (gay/lesbian etc etc) if you're talking about something specific, seems more straight forward. Or have LGBT and then Queer to describe everything else? I dunno, something simpler than a string of letters I can't remember and that are different depending who you ask

[y.winter]

Originally Posted by Withano

I agree to an extent, the original LGBT was a beautiful thing, but I'd say that acronym has survived on its own and is still used regularly to describe the inequality that they face. The letters after that is more to do with community and inclusivity I'd imagine (the majority of heterosexual people also fit under the acronym I mentioned) and I think thats a brilliant, yet separate thing. And I think that way because views like the one below are pretty prominent. 'Asexuals (and the etc) cant be included into the community because theyre just looking for nouns instead of doing something useful'. Its a bit ridiculous, and its excellent that they have been included despite views like that.

I just think that at some point this acronym becomes a joke and a parody on its actual origin. You can't append all the ABC to LGBT and expect people to take it seriously. It's totally missing the point.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by y.winter

I just think that at some point this acronym becomes a joke and a parody on its actual origin. You can't append all the ABC to LGBT and expect people to take it seriously. It's totally missing the point.

Its there for people who want to use it, I'd say 'LGBT+' is the most common acronym. Job done. And not to sound like some sort of controversist, but excluding people because WE HAVE ENOUGH LETTERS THANK YOU is actually the parody of it actual origin, and totally missing the point I'd say.

[y.winter]

That's really stretching what I said, especially rephrasing and putting it in block letters to make it like some sort of a hysterical seizure.

[Marches]

Originally Posted by Withano

Its there for people who want to use it, I'd say 'LGBT+' is the most common acronym. Job done. And not to sound like some sort of controversist, but excluding people because WE HAVE ENOUGH LETTERS THANK YOU is actually the parody of it actual origin, and totally missing the point I'd say.

The current acronym excludes straight people too, and people attracted to cats and blue whales. I think we’ll need more letters

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Marches

The current acronym excludes straight people too, and people attracted to cats and blue whales. I think we’ll need more letters

..it doesnt exclude straight people though..

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by y.winter

That's really stretching what I said, especially rephrasing and putting it in block letters to make it like some sort of a hysterical seizure.

people do that all the time in the debates forum, it's real annoying

[Marches]

Originally Posted by Withano

..it doesnt exclude straight people though..

Where?

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Withano

I agree to an extent, the original LGBT was a beautiful thing, but I'd say that acronym has survived on its own and is still used regularly to describe the inequality that they face. The letters after that is more to do with community and inclusivity I'd imagine (the majority of heterosexual people also fit under the acronym I mentioned) and I think thats a brilliant, yet separate thing. And I think that way because views like the one below are pretty prominent. 'Asexuals (and the etc) cant be included into the community because theyre just looking for nouns instead of doing something useful'. Its a bit ridiculous, and its excellent that they have been included despite views like that.

I just think the more “letters” you add to LGBT the more you take away from it too, like you said people just mock and say people are just coming up for labels for thenselves. I don’t see why there isn’t a separate acronym for “others” so to speak where it’s not really about equality it’s more about “the separate thing” as you put it Like IAP could be something completely separate to LGBT