Quit Clownin Around

let clowns impart ancient knowledge upon the mortals --sideblog--

[determinate-negation]

[cowardly-bisexual]

sexual orientation is who you’re attracted to not how

[cowardly-bisexual]

and i’m not just saying this to be an asshole, sexual orientation is a social construct that was historically created to medicalise, criminalise and kill gay and bisexual people

lesbian, gay and bisexual movements? were created to stand up to that oppression, reclaim and redefine the labels that were forced onto us and fight for our lives, our safety and our dignity

these historical labels and movements exist because they are how we survived, they are why we are here and why we have the rights that we do. so when you redefine sexual orientation to mean not who you’re attracted to but how, you’re just displaying your ignorance of historical and societal context of gay, lesbian and bisexual communities and your ignorance of why they are still vital for us today

building identity and community around who you’re attracted to? vital to our organising, activism, communities and survival

building identity around how you’re attracted to people? self indulgent, individualist and politically completely useless 

[mrspider-deactivated20221213]

made some LGBT clown stickers for my redbubble :o]

[powerfulwizard]

creating an entire sexuality just to include members of a marginalized group that would already be included in your sexuality doesn’t make any sense. like hello. i’m not a lesbian. i’m davidsexual. i’m attracted to women and jewish women. that sounds like weird bigoted nonsense right?

[powerfulwizard]

bisexuality is just attraction to anybody regardless of gender so why does there need to be a special term for when you like to date trans people?

[powerfulwizard]

also here are my new sexuality definitions, and its always been this way and ill call you a bigot if you say otherwise:

lesbian: liking women for their goyishness

davidsexual: dating all women even if they’re jewish

[powerfulwizard]

defining a sexuality around trans men and trans women feeds into the idea that trans men aren’t men and trans women aren’t women. in fact, it feeds into the idea that they’re not either. which is also a common transphobic view of trans people. that they’re neither gender and they’re both just genderless-things. also defining a sexuality around non-binary people just feeds into the idea that non-binary people are a monolith third gender rather than a large spectrum of people’s individual unique gender experiences.

[powerfulwizard]

the part about defining pansexuality around trans men and trans women is obvious transphobic nonsense. but also… the fact that non-binary people can be lesbians and can be gay kinda contradicts the idea that you need to be pansexual to date them doesn’t it? and if non-binary people can be ANY sexuality and can date gay men, lesbians, and bisexual people…. that kinda means… bisexuality and pansexuality are the exact same thing. the only difference is one is based on not seeing trans men and trans women as the gender that they are, and a misunderstanding of what it means to be non-binary.

[powerfulwizard]

I like how you say “being pan does not mean you’re transphobic”  yet you define pansexuality based off attraction based off not caring whats in peoples pants…. I’m a lesbian and I date women both cis and trans… I don’t care whats in people’s pants either. I am definitely not fucking pansexual. That definition you gave means nothing.

[powerfulwizard]

[mediumkravitz]

I think a lot of aromantic people and others with adjacent labels who “still want a romantic relationship” need to understand that real life is not a sitcom. Y’all will go “I want to fall in love but I don’t like candle-lit dinners or kissing or any of the typical ‘romantic’ things so clearly I don’t feel romantic love” like boss… none of those things define love. Please just watch real people interact offline. Learn about love languages or something.

“Romance” is just a word for things you do and feel and experience when you love someone in a way distinct than just friendship. There are plenty of people madly in love with their partners who hate the concept of fancy dates and don’t kiss at all and prefer hugging or hand-holding or just being in close proximity to one another. I would find it romantic if a partner sent me a song that reminded me of them, or slept on my shoulder while we were sitting next to each other, or offered to do a chore for me because I’m tired. 

So many things can be romantic because what counts as romantic is based on you. There is no strict definition for this stuff. 

[arodiscours]

Being an aro who wants to be in a relationship is…. Actually a lot more complicated than this. A lot of aros feel the exact opposite of what you said. They want candlelit dinners and weddings and partners to kiss and hug but don’t want to/literally can’t fall in love… Because they are aromantic.

Most partnering aros (Is that the term? Whatever it’s what I like) are romance positive, that’s why they want to date.

[barbiedreamdyke]

if you desire someone to kiss and hug and go on dinner dates with and get married to… THATS LOVE. That’s romantic attraction at the very least?? how do you define “falling in love” if not the desire to do those things??

[arodiscours]

For a lot of aros, It’s just a vague “I want to do this”, not with a person/specific person in mind.

Like me? I’d like to have a wedding. But as soon as I think about the actual person? Blegh, gross. So after that, it’s just about finding someone who doesn’t make you go “ugh” when you picture yourself in a traditionally romantic scenario.

And I can’t define romantic attraction, I don’t feel it. But I don’t think it’s defined by actions at the very least.

[barbiedreamdyke]

so what you are describing to me is the fact that you desire the things that are endgame in a romantic relationship, but have not found someone you want to fulfill that romantic relationship with. it sounds actively like you are describing romantic attraction.

it’s very easy for me to describe romantic attraction: someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, kiss/hug/be intimate with, possibly start a family with, etc. that’s what you said you wanted, and you want to find someone who you feel this way about. that’s romantic attraction babe!

[barbiedreamdyke]

you articulated this so well, it’s such an unhealthy way to view other people and to view how you yourself conceptualize love/affection/compassion!

@elhuei

[enoughtohold]

if you’re going to make these assumptions that non-asexual people are “sex-happy,” have sex frequently or at all, have uncomplicated relationships to sex, are sexually attracted to strangers or other people they don’t have a strong bond with, etc., then you have to accept that there are TONS of people who fit your definition of asexual who are not part of any identifiable asexual community, who may not ever identify as asexual, who do not necessarily agree with any theories, politics, or systems of identification developed by asexual communities, but whose feelings and ways of relating to sexuality are just as valid as yours, and you have no way of knowing who they are. and when you assume that someone must not be one of these people, must embody every expectation you have about non-asexual people, solely because they do not identify as asexual, you are making very invasive and inappropriate assumptions about another person’s personal, private sexual feelings and that is not okay. and in particular when you do this to lgbt people, women, people of color, and especially people at the intersections of those groups, you are reinforcing ideas about their relationships to sexuality that play a significant role in their oppression.

[fish-to-male]

The most dangerous idea birthed out of ace discourse that is still impacting people today is that sex is solely something you do for your partner.

This idea was promoted primarily to argue that asexuals could have healthy and consenting sex without experiencing attraction, but what it served to do was blur the lines of consent that in my opinion were only becoming more distinct and spelled out in social justice spaces at the time this contradictory idea entered the scene.

Sex given without enthusiastic consent isn’t conseting sex- that’s just the reality. Obviously we’re all imperfect organic beings and I’m not saying that two partners are always going to be equally enthusiastic and desiring at the same time, but sex where both partners can’t comfortably and assuredly say, “Yes, I want this” isn’t consenting sex. Sex where one partner is ambivalent about what they want or desire isn’t consenting sex. Sex where someone has to be convinced of what they are comfortable with isn’t consenting sex. Sex that exists for the enjoyment and pleasure of a single partner isn’t consenting sex.

I had a partner at one point who was not asexual but identified with that spectrum and was therefore very impacted by this idea. She felt it was within her right to demand sex when I explicitly said no and to continue to demand it until I began to say yes or dissociated so that I couldn’t easily make my own descisions. I hold her responsible for her own wrongdoings and how she treated me, but I also recognize that she would not have felt the same justification for her behaviour had she not been introduced to the idea that sex is something you solely do for your partner.

Asexuals within the ace community deserve better than to feel as if their consent is negotiable, partners of those within the community deserve better than to feel their consent is negotiable, and those struck by collateral damage of this idea also deserve better.

We must dismantle this idea to avoid future damage to young impressionable LGBT people and all else involved.

[lunarbisexuals-deactivated20191]

bad: ‘bisexuals are sex-obsessed maniacs who only care about fucking others and are only after your body. they don’t truly care about others, they just want to fuck you and that’s it.’

somehow not bad: ‘bisexuals only care about gender/sex/bodies whereas pansexuals are able to see past this. only they are able to love someone for who they are inside, and bisexuals only love you for what you look like.’

[megasadbois-deactivated20210625]

As a pansexual Id like to apologize for what we’ve been associated with.

I’m sorry that y'all have to deal with this. Bi people and Pan people can have preferences. Bi people and Pan people are able to love people for who they are inside.

The Bi/Pan communities need to stick together

[ambienista-deactivated20210217]

“as a pansexual” you are PERSONALLY responsible for being associated with this. yes, you, personally. the second you decided there is any not-biphobic, not-transphobic, non-objectifying (covertly or overtly) reason to identify as pansexual, you contributed to the reason you are associated with this.

the bi and pan communities dont need to stick together. we don’t want you. you’re not our friends. if you don’t want to be one of us SOOOOO badly that youll make up another label for it, even though there is not a single discernible difference between us that matters, steal our flag and what it stands for and replace the meanings of the colors with ones that make us look bad and you look good, spread misinformation about us in media (big mouth and sex education come to mind) and in person, if you really dont want to be bisexuals that badly, and you clearly do: then just stay the fuck away from us. because the second you do it you become no better than any other common biphobe. and that’s not even touching on the transphobia. so, fuck off.

[batou]

some of u should have an OnlyClowns account

[themadcapmathematician]

what the fuck do you think a tumblr is

[harpyhormones]

please just say lgbt

it literally never once needed to expand beyond lgbt

it covers what it needs to cover just leave it

[kinslayersadvocate-deactivated2]

It don’t covers ace people

[exclusexy]

that’s the idea

[cowardly-bisexual]

Can we please shift the conversation from whether labels are "valid" and start asking substanial questions such as are they useful? Are they useful politically or for building communities and movements? Do they make sense? How are they materially different from other labels? What kind of message do they send about people who don't subscribe to that label? Why would we need them? What are they based on? What is their history, origin and purpose? Are they useful irl? Why do they make use feel different than older, more stigmatised labels?

Let's move beyond individual feelings and immediate gratification and start asking what's useful and helpful for us as a movement if we want to achieve material change

[cowardly-bisexual]

All I ever get as a response when criticising certain labels is "you're wrong, xyz is valid!!!"

Okay but is it useful? Is it harmful? Does it make sense? Why do we need it? Let's have a real conversation bitch, I'm past this "everything is valid" kindergarten nonsense

[cowardly-bisexual]

Me, a poor bisexual simpleton: the label “pansexuality” is ahistoric and biphobic, it ignores material reality, redefines bisexuality for bisexuals and erases decades of bi activism, it encourages internalised biphobia and harmful misconceptions about LGBT people, it alienates people from existing communities, check out these historical sources

You, an intellectual: okay but consider this… pansexuality just FEELS RIGHT! let people do whatever they want, everyone and everything is valid ❤️

[colorisbyshe]

i wonder why aces are surprised lgbt people resent them and their rhetoric and don’t want to include all aces or ace rhetoric in the lgbt community when one of the most important pieces of rhetoric in the ace community is “you can have sex with people you are not attracted to”

which is something gay and bi people have been hearing since the dawn of them in attempts to “convert” them into straightness through violence, rape, and medical abuse (conversion therapy)

when the rhetoric and “activism” of the ace community begins to sound like the shit heterosexuals have been forcing down our throats or the things we tell ourselves in moments of self homophobia (and sometimes even act out on in moments of self harm or delusion), we’re allowed to lash out and be resentful and set boundaries around which aces we do and do not consider to be lgbt

[discoursepoisoning]

as much as there is an attempt by aces to infiltrate the LGBT community, as successful as that infiltration project has been, there is an even more successful project of infiltrating “asexuality” itself. asexuality’s meaning has been expanded from “someone that does not want to have sex and does not experience /any form, whatsoever/ of attraction” into “someone who may have a libido, may want sex, may experience any form of attraction in any configuration of gender, frequency, and intensity, so long as they believe that they experience desire and/or attraction in some nebulously different way than they believe the majority of people do.” the discourse around “are cishet aces lgbt” is real depressing to me, because both sides of the discourse have accepted that cishet aces are /ace/, which…. they are not. a “heteroromantic ace” is just a heterosexual person. romantic attraction, even without sexual desire, precludes asexuality. there is no asexual spectrum - there are people who are asexual, and people who are not, and the vast majority of people claiming to be asexual are disqualified from asexuality if you apply any coherent definition of asexuality to them. the “ace community” has not only mostly-successfully wormed their way into the lgbt community via disingenuously weaponizing the language of social justice (with loaded words like “inclusivity” and “gatekeeping” to paint those with objections as “problematic”), they’ve utterly destroyed the chance for asexual people to build an actual, supportive community of our own.

and kinda tangentially i suspect this phenomenon has a lot to do with the very puritanical american approach to sexuality - there is an incentive, both social and psychological, to be perceived or to perceive oneself as “pure,” “chaste,” not-promiscuous, not a being of desire, not a creature with urges to control, etc. and for so many people to take refuge in the asexual identity instead of critically examining why they consciously or subconsciously approach sexuality in that way… well, i think “ace” tumblr’s rhetoric around “allogays” is telling of the consequences of that kind of thinking! it isnt progressive to engage in homophobia (and biphobia, and misogyny) even if you couch your sentiment in the language of social justice by reifying your puritanical bullshit into the stolen “asexual” identity.

[colorisbyshe]

i fucking hate to make an ace discourse post in 20 fucking 20 but it really needs to be said and i KNOW this is gonna come off as a smarmy “i told you so post”

but i’ve been on twitter recently and there is a fucking DELUGE of people promoting the idea of “bisexual lesbians” (never bisexual gay men but like… that’s a tangential dialogue for another time). this idea that you can be bisexual and a lesbian at the same time is a direct product of the split attraction model.

this is the EXACT shit i was talking about when I said rhetoric from ace community is not compatible, at all, with the LGBT community.

sexualizing the -sexual suffix so “bisexual” SOLELY means “SEXUALLY attracted to the opposite gender” so someone can be bisexual and “homoromantic” is ACTIVELY harmful to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. it sexualizes bisexuals without consent and COMPLETELY redefines what gayness is so it can include attraction to the “opposite” gender.

and this is just one example of how ace inclusion–not just the inclusion of cisgender, straight aces but also the prioritization of ace ideals–hurts the LGBT community. the rhetoric that you can have sex with people you aren’t attracted to to “make it work” romantically is conversion therapy rhetoric. Ace inclusion makes it seem like the LGBT community is about our relationships to sex when that just isn’t true. Ace inclusion means “desexualizing” LGBT spaces so as not to upset asexuals. All this shit AND MORE is happening in real time and I’ve watched it get worse and worse, hand in hand with the commercialization of LGBT pride and the liberalization of LGBT activism.

ace rhetoric is eroding LGBT identities. the idea of the “bisexual lesbian” and other mogai microidentities where you parse every single aspect of your identity into a different label is actively harming vulnerable LGBT people.

and, no, this isn’t me saying “even LGBT aces have to go,” but this is me saying that putting ace identities at the forefront of ANY LGBT discussions leaves a lot of space for harm for LGBT people. and that any fucking ace rhetoric besides “it’s okay to not feel sexual attraction or want to have sex” comes at the expense of LGBT identity.

genuinely, the concept of “bisexual lesbian” is a direct product of the ace community and it has caused lesbians and bisexual women irreparable harm. and aces should be ashamed of this because this is what they have been defending for years.

this is the EXACT shit we said would come out of the split attraction model and now we have TEENAGERS telling strangers and adults “i’m sexually attracted to [x genders] but only romantically into [y]” and y’all think this is okay. even if it weren’t fucking INSANE to say lesbians can be attracted to men or that bisexuals can be half gay or half straight, you’d STILL be out of fuckng line having KIDS center identities around SOLELY sexual attraction.

i’m ripshit pissed

[colorisbyshe]

i am saying this with everything i have–there is NOTHING positive to come out of the ace community that couldn’t have been identically accomplished by simply saying “you don’t ever have to want sex, you don’t owe anyone sex, it’s okay to not sexually desire anyone” which is shit feminism has already been doing.

[toastpotent-deactivated20250619]

someone who is arguing that bisexual and pansexual are fundamentally synonyms: *500 page analysis into how the label bisexual was initially coined in history, the debate over the terminology around the word, the historical inclusion of trans people in lgbt+ spaces, the discriminatory way that trans people are often perceived as beyond the gender binary even when they identify within that binary, and the direct implications between reducing bisexuality to a functionally incorrect definition and spreading biphobic and transphobic rhetoric*

someone who believes in the "bi = 2 pan = all" argument: "okay well that's cute sweetie but i'll have you know that i've read every percy jackson book (all of them!) so i'm pretty much fluent in greek and according to the greek language, "bi" is actually a prefix referring to the number "2" which means that bisexuality means you are attracted to "2" genders. no i am not going to consider why the label "bi"sexual was chosen to refer to the community or what other bi/trans people have to say about this at all. hope this helps :)"

[tomcats-and-tophats]

Defining your sexuality as uniquely “being attracted to PERSONALITY” is just so condescending and revealing. Like how poorly do you regard your LGBT siblings to cast our experiences in such an ugly superficial light

[fckin-deactivated20171107]

not to be problematique but from what i see and hear on here the majority of self identifying asexuals aren’t actually asexual and are just experiencing internalized homophobia or are generally insecure and scared of the idea of having sex which is like …. normal. like i see so many gay people on here calling themselves ace cause they wanna kiss and hold their bfs/gfs but not have sex w/ them cause ew that’s icky and dirty and gross but never stop to think critically about why they feel that way. or “i don’t like having sex because i feel weird during and after” like perhaps maybe that’s because sex is weird and uncomfortable when you’re insecure about yourself and your body. just a thought

[fckin-deactivated20171107]

you think you’re taking a step forward by pushing this kind of behavior and way of thinking onto others but you’re actually taking three steps back like there are quite literally a million reasons why a person might feel uncomfortable with the idea of sex ESPECIALLY if they are trans/gay (which is a large percentage of this website) that doesn’t involve these micro identities like asexual or litho or whatever else y'all made up yesterday instead of letting these people grow and look inside themselves you’re keeping them stuck in the same place and telling them not to think about why they feel that way

[jeremiahinnocence-deactivated20]

I feel like this is a good post bc true points plus also most ace people I see on this site are under 18 and its not explained well enough to young kids how daunting sex is when youre not mature enough emotionally for it and its consequences. also teens are desperate for identity and a place of belonging and i feel like thats why we get all the really specific microidentities that are really just common traits of being a person growing and maturing bc it creates a sense of community missing in a lot of young ppls lives