Yoin Rri Khaw Rryurry

[orhraa-yusu]

This acc is basically dead. I hop on here sometimes to make a post or reply if I’m really feeling silly but otherwise consider it dead and that replies aren’t likely

[orhraa-yusu]

i don't intend to be active at all whatsoever but hi hello if anyone wants to catch up

[kaile-hultner]

Just thinking about how republicans are going after normie sex shit like "internet porn" and "dildos" now

we fucking told y'all

[kaile-hultner]

to be clear: the right views any sex that isn't purely procreative as deviant. it's not just kink, or queer sex they find abhorrent. And they genuinely believe that the better educated you are about sex in general, including about gender shit, the more deviant you are. they're legitimately trying to claw everyone down to hell with them.

[headspace-hotel]

Now? Before 2003 it was legit technically illegal in some states for even straight couples to have oral or anal sex, and there are still laws in some states restricting how many dildos you can own etc.

I don't really know what the goal is with putting a numerical limit on dildos, but with republicans the answer is usually "There isn't one. Die."

[buttons-beads-lace]

This is your periodic reminder that it is currently right now illegal in the united states to own porn that the average person in your community would be offended by. That's the legal definition of obscenity (a piece of media that 1. Exists to turn people on 2. has no other "redeeming" purpose and 3. would be offensive to most people in your jurisdiction) and you can theoretically be arrested and go to jail for owning "obscene" media or giving it to other people.

"But that's ridiculous," you say, "porn that the average taxpayer would think was ~offensive~ is absolutely fuckin' everywhere, on the internet and in real life, and nobody gets in trouble for it." And you'd be right about that. Realistically, this is a law that cannot be enforced: it is way too easy to break, way too hard to track, and way too many people are interested in breaking it.

Same with the pre-Lawrence v. Texas laws against "sodomy" that headspace-hotel is talking about. Yeah, it was illegal to give a blowjob in the privacy of your own home. But of course most people who like blowjobs never even thought twice about those laws, because it's usually pretty easy to Not tell a cop what you do in the privacy of your bedroom with your spouse.

"So if laws like this don't actually stop people from doing whatever sexual things they want to do, why are you concerned about it? You just said these laws don't hurt anybody, right?" Here's the thing. The purpose of laws like this is to create an atmosphere where you can get away with doing ""deviant"" things... if you hide it from polite society, if you keep it secret, if you know your place.

What you can't do is go out in public and say that actually gay people can have happy relationships, or that masturbating sometimes doesn't make you a depraved sex addict, or that it's okay to want to enjoy having sex and not just do it as your Duty To Your Husband.

You can get away with doing what you want in private if you never challenge the dominant cultural message that what you're doing is gross and immoral and people who do it are disgusting freaks. If you dare to speak up and point out that your ""shameful secret"" is actually normal, off you go to jail.

That's the purpose of laws like this. To make it impossible to challenge the rhetorical stranglehold of conservative christianity on society. To shift the Overton window once and for all to the right. And that's why we need to fight laws like this with all our strength, every time the right tries to push them forward, even when the specifics are stuff like "you can't own more than five dildoes" that might seem like a silly thing to go to war over. It's not about the specifics. It's about limiting everyone's speech to things a conservative preacher would say from the pulpit.

[bijoumikhawal]

The other thing laws like this are good for is giving the police excuses

[defilerwyrm]

Younger Americans NEED to understand why Lawrence vs Texas went to the Supreme Court.

In 2003, police raided the private home of two gay men and charged them with sodomy. I cannot emphasize enough that THEY WERE NOT CURRENTLY HAVING SEX AT ALL when the police raided them. But the cops had “probable cause” to believe that they had, at some point, had non-procreative sex, which was illegal under Texas’s sodomy law, so they were charged with a crime.

Ultimately, the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional because US citizens have a right to privacy: what consenting adults do in their own homes is their own business.

What you need to know is that in four states, including Texas and. Missouri, sodomy laws are still on the books. That means that if SCOTUS strikes down Lawrence vs Texas, these laws immediately go back into effect, and more states can add their own.

What would that look like?

If you’re on Tinder and your profile says you’re gay or bi, the police can subpoena your profile and use it to arrest you.

If you’re on Scruff or Grindr, the police can subpoena your location data and messages and use them to track down and arrest you and all your hookups.

If you’re in a same-sex marriage, the police can subpoena a list of same-sex marriage certificates and arrest every single couple—even if they’re widowed or divorced.

If your school has an LGBTQ club, the police can subpoena a list of members and arrest kids & college students.

They could subpoena data from FetLife and Facebook and Twitter and, yes, if they thought to do so, Tumblr. Rainbow flag in your profile? They’re drawing up charges.

And all of these people getting arrested and charged with sodomy, when convicted, will not only have their lives ruined by jail time, but will also likely be labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

This is not ancient history. This was not “back in the day.” I WAS IN COLLEGE WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

And the Republicans are frothing at the fucking mouth to bring these horrors back.

[disgruntled-foreign-patriarch]

Good

[winterphile]

Cool story, could you post the things that the Republicans want removed from elementary school textbooks and libraries? Uncensored so that we can know for certain what you are talking about? 

[the-davest-of-uncles]

leftists know what they fuck they're talking about challenge 2023

[friendlyneighborhoodgeek]

OP: We don't want those things shown to literal children, you do realize how that's different, right?

Oh, wait, of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to lie about it.

[orhraa-yusu]

Did you 3 even read what the post is about or is your whataboutism showing?

[orhraa-yusu]

It is actually really easy to be a gay trans man in a gay marriage and be Christian actually. Sick of both sides acting like it’s impossible lmao

[orhraa-yusu]

I see there are still plenty of people who want to use real issues that are worth discussing as an excuse to just show how vitriolic and vengeful they are to people based on their demographics.

It’s a cute look, I hope nobody goes after you for your demographics and then you defend yourself. Would be hypocritical.

[orhraa-yusu]

Btw I hopped on just to spit a thought out as I now do then I’ll log off but lemme say the reason so many of you are so unhappy and upset with the world is because of how terminally online you are.

Go outside, go work out, get a planner, get your life in order. Family and responsibility first. Fun hobbies next. If there’s any time for the internet after (there shouldn’t be most days), then play with the internet.

[orhraa-yusu]

Definitely not buying into the alien stuff right now, there’s too many things around it that keep being conveniently ignored in favor of it.

I’m not opposed to aliens but unless they whip out real proof there’s no incentive to believe or care honestly.

[orhraa-yusu]

Would Mr. Rogers approve how you're treating strangers on the internet?

This is such a funny ask to come back to because in like 99% of instances I make my own original posts and people come at me first, and in others I try to genuinely provide links and resources to educate people

[capitalism-and-analytics]

What’s your thoughts on the Supreme Courts decision on allowing that woman to ban Gay people from her business?

Once again, I have no clue on the legality of their decision, but from a moral perspective, I do not think people should be forced to provide services or labor for things they do not agree with. This is true on both sides of this scenario: a Gay website designer should not have to design a website that is pro-Christian nor should a Christian website designer have to design a website that they believe violates their religious beliefs.

Additionally, I am unsure as to why anyone would want to support a business that openly is against them. This is some wild "LET ME SUPPORT MY ENEMY!" type stuff.

[honeyriot]

Pro fascism account

[homeofthephobic-buff-deactivate]

retard

[postrabid-deactivated20230924]

It takes two seconds to realize that rural areas will use laws like these to make their cities uninhabitable for any openly gay people. of course they could just move to cities which we historically have because smaller rural areas sucked to begin with. first it's a wedding photographer, then a restaurant, then the only grocery store within 30 miles, etc etc.

this ruling also applies to every religion. meaning there's nothing stopping places like Utah from becoming completely inhospitable to anyone who isn't Mormon. Not that Mormons would necessarily do that, but they have gone off the deep end on multiple occasions in the past.

denying service on a personal level isn't really impactful but when you get a shit ton of these people living together and they all think the same, eventually you'll have nowhere left to find business. like think about Minnesota and how fucked some of those people in Muslim majority towns are going to be now. Its a dumbass president, there is zero specification on how performing a service interferes with a person's religious beliefs. Do I think a Catholic priest should have to marry two gays? No, that's a clear contradiction of his beliefs. But does serving a gay couple at a restaurant violate the owners beliefs? Not fucking really, but it now he can legally bar them on that basis. That's what's retarded

[orhraa-yusu]

Thanks for taking a long time to say you didn't actually read the ruling. You know it's available to read on the Supreme Court website. I've linked it twice now on my blog if you need, or search Creative LLC vs Elenis.

[postrabid-deactivated20230924]

search gay porn on Google.com

[orhraa-yusu]

Have fun talking out of your ass about things you don't know about lmao

[capitalism-and-analytics]

What’s your thoughts on the Supreme Courts decision on allowing that woman to ban Gay people from her business?

Once again, I have no clue on the legality of their decision, but from a moral perspective, I do not think people should be forced to provide services or labor for things they do not agree with. This is true on both sides of this scenario: a Gay website designer should not have to design a website that is pro-Christian nor should a Christian website designer have to design a website that they believe violates their religious beliefs.

Additionally, I am unsure as to why anyone would want to support a business that openly is against them. This is some wild "LET ME SUPPORT MY ENEMY!" type stuff.

[honeyriot]

Pro fascism account

[homeofthephobic-buff-deactivate]

retard

[postrabid-deactivated20230924]

It takes two seconds to realize that rural areas will use laws like these to make their cities uninhabitable for any openly gay people. of course they could just move to cities which we historically have because smaller rural areas sucked to begin with. first it's a wedding photographer, then a restaurant, then the only grocery store within 30 miles, etc etc.

this ruling also applies to every religion. meaning there's nothing stopping places like Utah from becoming completely inhospitable to anyone who isn't Mormon. Not that Mormons would necessarily do that, but they have gone off the deep end on multiple occasions in the past.

denying service on a personal level isn't really impactful but when you get a shit ton of these people living together and they all think the same, eventually you'll have nowhere left to find business. like think about Minnesota and how fucked some of those people in Muslim majority towns are going to be now. Its a dumbass president, there is zero specification on how performing a service interferes with a person's religious beliefs. Do I think a Catholic priest should have to marry two gays? No, that's a clear contradiction of his beliefs. But does serving a gay couple at a restaurant violate the owners beliefs? Not fucking really, but it now he can legally bar them on that basis. That's what's retarded

[orhraa-yusu]

Thanks for taking a long time to say you didn't actually read the ruling. You know it's available to read on the Supreme Court website. I've linked it twice now on my blog if you need, or search Creative LLC vs Elenis.

[orhraa-yusu]

I am back on here insisting that people should actually read the Supreme Court ruling on Creative LLC vs Elenis because both sides have been blatantly misrepresenting what the ruling is and it's kind of ridiculous.

Here is the ruling.

It is not about the right to refuse service to people. It is reinforcing your right to free speech to not be forced to say things you do not believe without being punished by government or compelled to say what you don't believe by government. This case makes it clear free speech also applies to creative businesses and work. That's it.

[capitalism-and-analytics]

What’s your thoughts on the Supreme Courts decision on allowing that woman to ban Gay people from her business?

Once again, I have no clue on the legality of their decision, but from a moral perspective, I do not think people should be forced to provide services or labor for things they do not agree with. This is true on both sides of this scenario: a Gay website designer should not have to design a website that is pro-Christian nor should a Christian website designer have to design a website that they believe violates their religious beliefs.

Additionally, I am unsure as to why anyone would want to support a business that openly is against them. This is some wild "LET ME SUPPORT MY ENEMY!" type stuff.

[traditionalwishes-deactivated20]

What concerns me is what sort of precedent this sets. Its not *just* about LGBT folks vs Christian. (Although if you consider yourself Christian and are pulling this hatefulness, read 1 Timothy 5:8, then reread it.)

The precedent being will people site this as grounds for segregation? The SCOTUS ruled a woman doesn't have to serve gay petson because its against her religion. That also means John Smith who goes to white nationalist church (yes, they exist) does not have to serve {insert race, skin color, or religion}.

What SCOTUS has done is terrifying.

[capitalism-and-analytics]

To my understanding (I could be mistaken), but I do not believe that is correct.

My understanding of their decision is that people are allowed to refuse expressive services (not any service) that conflict with their own personal beliefs; not based on the customer’s background {insert race, skin color, sexuality, or religion}. This is very different than the precedent you are mentioning. For example, an artist can refuse all art services that conflict with their own personal beliefs, but they can not refuse art services based on an individual’s background {insert race, skin color, sexuality, or religion}. 

I do recognize there are obviously lines of ambiguity and this could be abused with loopholes, but let us not pretend like those who wished to discriminate prior to this decision were unable. Similar to how, the Supreme Court decision “banned” affirmative action in university admissions selections, yet does not forbid schools from considering students who discuss in their application how race has affected their life.

As I have mentioned before, you cannot legislate hatred away, you only mask it.

[orhraa-yusu]

This is correct. The ruling, which I support, is about not being compelled by force of government punishment to express speech you do not agree with.

The woman in question explicitly stated, which is quoted in the SCOTUS decision release, that she would not deny gay people services, simply that she may choose to deny specific services they may ask for on the grounds of her faith.

I highly encourage people go and read scotus' statement (which I will link here) because I think the logic is incredibly sound. That logic being: the government should not be able to compel you to say things you do not want to say for fear of punishment in jail time or fines.

I'm not saying there aren't probably loopholes to this ruling but I think it's far more sound in their statement than most want you to believe.

[orhraa-yusu]

SCOTUS did not approve of discrimination and the ability to deny lgbt people service. Anyone telling you that is lying to you. They validated a business' right to deny specific services that violate beliefs, not deny people. Learn the difference.

[orhraa-yusu]

k I've had fun, acc is dead again unless I think of something I wanna throw into the void

[orhraa-yusu]

Hopping on to say I have a lot of negative words for Demi Lovato but the primary is that she's a dumb disrespectful and bigoted bitch for thinking she can wear the years of my suicidal ideation like a cute little statement and then starts the process of backtracking when it stresses her out—as if that's an option for any of us transsexuals.

uwu I'm gonna use she/her again because going by they/them and explaining it is so haaaaaard!

Fuck off you really don't know what difficulty is being trans you actually privileged self-indulging bitch.

[orhraa-yusu]

I am still so feral about this it's SO annoying seeing people sympathy whine for her ass she's literally wearing uwu pronouns like it's a sexy little skin suit and then rips it off when it's uwu too haaaard

fuck off idc it's so so so embarrassing to wear peoples' struggles and then drop it when it's difficult and act like you deal with the same stuff or like you're legit

[aeeebil]

they still go by they them u narcissist

[orhraa-yusu]

She knows just like everyone else that nobody who isn't performative and looking for attention will use that. It's a step to walk back something that turns out to be not as fun and quirky. Not to mention regular attention seeking behavior, it's no surprise.

You're welcome to call me a narcissist I ain't go no problem with that, keep being upset someone calls out attention seeking trend wearing bs for what it is.

[orhraa-yusu]

Hopping on to say I have a lot of negative words for Demi Lovato but the primary is that she's a dumb disrespectful and bigoted bitch for thinking she can wear the years of my suicidal ideation like a cute little statement and then starts the process of backtracking when it stresses her out—as if that's an option for any of us transsexuals.

uwu I'm gonna use she/her again because going by they/them and explaining it is so haaaaaard!

Fuck off you really don't know what difficulty is being trans you actually privileged self-indulging bitch.

[needsomehargrovelovin]

You're fucking stupid and obviously failed reading in schools because Demi Lovato is still nonbinary and you just misgendered them out of your own hatred for them so congratulations for being a bigot.

[orhraa-yusu]

Except I didn't misgender her because she's fine with it again lmao doesn't matter why, she can start the process of walking it back because oh boo boo it's so hard :((((

[needsomehargrovelovin]

Except Demi literally said they only added SHE HER back because people dont accept THEY THEM so actually yeah you're still misgendering. How can you sit there as a trans person and tell someone their suffering doesnt matter. You're actually a shitty person and should probably suffer more if you lack empathy for anyone who doesnt identify with the birth pronouns. I remember back in 2015 when it was considered a fashion statement to identify as trans, and guess what? those people are still trans. Its not a fashion statement or a trend to not be comfortable in your birth identity. You're such a cry baby and my point still stands you think nobody has suffered like you. You're not a victim because you're trans babe you're a narcissistic asshole. Maybe you need to go outside and get a life outside of being trans if a celebrity who is literally facing the same fucking backlash for identifying as nonbinary triggers you. As a MTF shut the fuck up you big ass cry baby. You have literally 0 right to gatekeep being trans or NB. Plenty of trans people btw were forced to go back on being trans for their safety fyi so your comments are still transphobic. Im glad YOU got the privilege to be openly trans, not everyone gets that experience.

[orhraa-yusu]

I have no issues with actual trans ppl having to closet themselves for safety. That's not what this is. Also she's going by she/her because she feels more feminine your own sources before had that.

I'm living an amazing life irl babe I'm married, have a good job, a good house, I'm doing good. I also stealth because I've worked my ASS off to pass for years and I'm still not done with my transition. Non-binary people don't get to just dictate to others what ppl can call them when they can't and don't put effort into passing because non-binary people have nothing to pass AS, whereas you and I have things to pass as: female and male, respectively.

Besides i know through my own efforts I've done more to help trans people in an applicable way irl than Demi has with her whining sooooo idc. Sure you think I don't have empathy and am a narcissist because of 1 post. That's cute and cool of you, I really don't care.

>it's not a fashion statement or a trend to be uncomfortable with your birth identity.

identity shit for trans topics is fake as fuck honestly. It's not your "identity" that makes you trans. It's your dysphoria about your sex, wanting to be the opposite sex, followed by the actions to then pursue that change in some form (aka some form of transition. Medical, social, you name it). You don't control pronouns, you don't control language, you control your self perception and how you present yourself to achieve those comforts. I'm sure Demi Lovato with all her breast-focused clothing (spend 5 minutes searching her online and you can see) really puts forth the effort worthy of respect from anyone to acknowledge her as a they. Yea no.

meanwhile it's easy to respect non-passing trans people who are simply trying, even if they don't pass, because it's easy to see when people are putting in effort. And also making sense because being trans is about your biological sex not matching your brain, not some weird abstract identity stuff.

tldr: lmao Demi sucks and plays trans issues like dress up until it's not as fun for her anymore then she starts the process of walking it back

[orhraa-yusu]

Hopping on to say I have a lot of negative words for Demi Lovato but the primary is that she's a dumb disrespectful and bigoted bitch for thinking she can wear the years of my suicidal ideation like a cute little statement and then starts the process of backtracking when it stresses her out—as if that's an option for any of us transsexuals.

uwu I'm gonna use she/her again because going by they/them and explaining it is so haaaaaard!

Fuck off you really don't know what difficulty is being trans you actually privileged self-indulging bitch.

[orhraa-yusu]

I am still so feral about this it's SO annoying seeing people sympathy whine for her ass she's literally wearing uwu pronouns like it's a sexy little skin suit and then rips it off when it's uwu too haaaard

fuck off idc it's so so so embarrassing to wear peoples' struggles and then drop it when it's difficult and act like you deal with the same stuff or like you're legit

[needsomehargrovelovin]

you're not a very good nonbinary person invalidating another nonbinary person because you cant read. not to mention its a very common issue for nonbinary folk to add back their birth pronouns for the exact same reasons demi stated they did.

[orhraa-yusu]

Lmao. I'm not non-binary babe. I'm trans. Non-binary is nothing more than a fashion statement one wears when they want to take my condition to look cute.

it was uncomfortable when i told people before i passed that i wanted to be referred to as a guy. But you know what the alternative was for me? Not walking it back because oh boohoo it's so hard. No. My options were deal with it or suicide. Literally shut the fuck up.

she can keep pretending she's still non-binary but she's walking it back because it's not as cute and fun and quirky as it was before. She can put on and take off MY hardships because she doesn't have to actually live it and deal with the consequences and hardships that come with being trans, transitioning, socializing as trans, watching out for news on my healthcare as an adult, etc. Something she as a privileged woman who wants to be quirky and cute will never deal with but wants to pretend she has it as hard as people like me and that we're the same.

go outside and get a life, man.