5434a
1d ago
The complexity of inter-homo-binary-transitional relationship terminology makes it difficult both to track and to discuss [the man-who-liked-men-before-becoming-a-woman-who-likes-men, vs the 2/5/17 other combinations]. Maybe German style additive word construction would be better than the standard Greek derived combinations.
The major difference of AGP would appear to be the A. Auto.
The weird bit is firstly that, while I can't speak for them, it's a fairly uncontroversial idea that heterosexual women can be as aroused by being an object of desire as they are by direct observation of what they desire. Apparently this is a very common theme in popular women's erotica.
Secondly there's the complication of what gay men want versus what they can offer. Like your example of the camp, openly gay queens who don't have sex with each other. Why not? Because they don't want a faggy queen, they want the kind of highly masculine man who... has gay sex with faggy queens. I believe the phenomenon persists in the preponderance of bottoms vs tops, and their ideal fantasy partner being a straight man. If masculinity is what gay men are attracted to then logically they should masc-maxx, but if femininity is what masculine men want then it would make more sense to trans-max, so that they can "go straight" to fulfill their gay fantasy of straight sex. I've never looked at gay porn but I have a hunch it focuses a lot more on blue collar bodybuilder types than on lisping waifs with frilly cuffs.
And then we have the AGP, who fetishises women to such an extent (a very male hetero mindset) that they become maximally feminine (a homosexual characteristic in men) so that they can embody themselves as their own object of desire (a female hetero mindset, maybe?) in their own eyes, the eyes of a heterosexual man. It's a muddle.
5434a
2d ago
It's not just the state and church, those are just one aspect of marriage. The Queer Theory interpretation is asking us to believe in revolutionary conformity.
The changed element is the institutional homophobia that disallowed gay marriage. That's a change, granted. But it can be described as an expansion, not a reduction. Marriage becomes an option for more people. The various and diverse structures that support the established norms that make up the cultural institution called marriage have gained additional clients, while Queer Theorists and their non-conformist norms have lost clients, hence why they have to contort themselves to present it as a good thing for their cause. I don't doubt that they can offer complicated and counterintuitive explanations for how it aids their cause, I just don't find those explanations convincing.
5434a
3d ago
The only thing that dismantles is the hetero norm that marriage is for a man and a woman. Any other factor remains unaffected at best or reinforced at worst (legitimacy as determined by the state or church, etc).
It's like putting on a dress and gagging on your wife's strap-on to dismantle queer theory. "Checkmate, homos! Your degeneracy has no place in this vision of society".
5434a
3d ago
You can't rally against injustice by expanding the advantages of an injustice to include your own group. Consider slavery.
5434a
3d ago
Fair, but the road travels both ways. For example progressives can't hold that gay marriage is good without holding that marriage itself is good.
5434a
6d ago
I'm reminded of the '00s era of affiliate marketing websites. They had a formula that they had aggressively A/B tested and the result was glaringly horrible. Huge pages with reams of dense repetitive text, corny testimonials, and endless nagboxes offering a FREE EBOOK if you subscribe to their newsletter. Sure a lot of it was keyword SEO but that only gets the visitors to arrive, it doesn't guide them into completing the desired actions.
One person's worthless waste of bandwidth and compute is a hundred other people's most interesting media of the moment. I don't understand why anyone gets into 4chan if they're not an irredeemable weeb, but they do.
If you read up on the case it started with her own prescription for sedatives, then he added muscle relaxants and would police and supervise the men to such a degree that he insisted they warmed their hands before touching her and didn't smoke cigarettes beforehand lest they smell of smoke. Apparently she did initially question him about deliberately drugging her but he gaslit her (if you'll pardon the proper use of the term) that she was too ill to know her own mind.
No doubt, just trying to tease apart the alignments, misalignments and re-alignments. The potential combinations multiply rapidly.
Fair play, I was under the impression it was the other way around. Maybe that's a function of their discretion. But then why the discretion?
More options
Context Copy link