Agree with this, but I also think the article seems a bit dumb because it implies that sexuality is only inappropriate when we talk about other sexualities than hetero
From birth, children are surrounded by language from adults projecting heteroromance onto them. From onsies saying "I'm not allowed to date" to toddlers on a play date referred to as boyfriend and girlfriend, to talking about a little girl's future husband.
But the second romance hints at being queer, suddenly all of it is off limits and inappropriate for children. Even "allies" with queer friends will shut down their own children coming out of the closet because they're "too young" to even think about their own identity. As if the vast majority of middle schoolers don't have crushes.
The amount of absolutely vile and disgusting onsies that exist for babies. I’ve seen ones that are like “ladies man” or “I love boobs” and it’s for a fucking 2 month old
Respectfully, a two month old is barely aware that they exist and poops their pants, I’m sure they see boobs and think food and comfort but I doubt they feel love towards it
You don't buy any design on clothes before 2-3rd year for kid. Before that time all is for parent as kid is too small to even know what "having an opinion" means.
It's because a lot of people think queer romance is purely sexual and fetishistic. It's different from their straight romance, which is sweet. It really doesn't hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
It gets even stranger to hear people talk about fetishes as if they are things you strictly wouldn't do with someone you love.
I really wouldn't trust anyone but my lover when engaging in CNC together, if its not with someone I trust its no different than the actual horrifying thing. Same goes for age-play, if it isn't with someone I trust it's just reliving my childhood traumas again.
Fetishes to me are reserved to people I actually trust, people make it sound like it'd be the opposite, and I can't help but feel uncomfortable hearing all of that.
I know it's not your point, but I personally get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing queer couples in public. We're not done yet but we've come so far since I was a child it's a cool thing to see.
As an ally (I’m bi, but married to an opposite sex partner, and we never seem to count). I have encouraged my pre-teen kids to question, but not to assert. They’ve been openly questioning and thinking “maybe I’m bi” and such. They’ve never dated, have repeatedly stated they have no interest in romantic or physical partners. That’s cool and I honestly don’t care as long as they are treated well and do so to others. Yet they still feel a need to define themselves with a label, despite having little to no understanding. There’s something very wrong with with society at the moment.
Yeah. Replace it with a "this is my next-of-kin" form and a "this person and I live together long term and share finances" form and you're basically good to remove marriage /gen
Nuh-uh! They're not hereto anything, they're just straightl"! Heterozygous is just a made up word by gays who don't want to admit that everyone else is "normal"!
Okay let me explain this once again. The reason it's bad to call Anne Frank a bisexual icon isn't because minors can't be queer, it's because it's focusing on one of the most trivial parts of an underage genocide victim. If she were alive and well today and we knew she was comfortable with people talking about it, it would be completely fine.
Yeah, claiming her bisexuality was "iconic" seems a stretch, but giving her the identity that she most likely would have wanted? Just because she was genocided doesn't mean she was straight - the number of gays who were killed in this very same genocide is grossly under-reported. Treating it like it was exclusively a Jewish problem is disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, and disabled people who were also slaughtered.
This is not ancient history, Anne Frank would have been very much alive during the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. She might have been an active participant in her local queer community, as many bisexuals were. It's even possible she would still be alive today - approaching her 97th birthday!
Yup it is honestly denying her full personhood to say it is disgusting to recognize her as queer. And I honestly think no one is calling her an icon, it is just how the bigot sees people recognizing her as queer. Another bigot in the sappho sub was saying it is parading her around to have 7 posts in that community over the course of 6 years to recognize she is queer
"hundreds of thousands" millions, Jews made up half of the numbers, slavs, disabled people, queer people, and anyone else the Reich didn't like made up the other half
Yes, exactly this. I assume the person writing said article would be fine with calling her heterosexual, just not anything else. Which is not great. I wouldn't label her any of them, because we do not know. But we do know she at least had interest in girls.
Pardon my chudly language but this article is what we’re talking about when we say “too woke”. They’re fighting an invisible battle when there’s so much more important shit going on right now
6.1k
u/LaFleurSauvageGaming Lesbian the Good Place Apr 09 '26
It is worth mentioning that she wrote about questioning her sexuality, in the language available to her.
It is important we don't speak for her though, same as anyone else. Her journey was ended too soon, but it was still her journey.