Being straight means to be attracted to only members of the opposite sex. With the rise of transexual mainstreaming and acceptance as well as numbers of people going through with the various stages of transitioning their gender, this created a rift because people who identify as straight have different feelings about trans people. This mostly applies to straight men and trans women. A trans woman is a biological male who lives life as a woman. So, depending on how good the surgeries were to transition the male parts into female parts and how feminine the final outcome is, a lot of straight men don’t care that a trans woman they date is really a biological male because “straight” means being attracted to women – not doing a DNA test and then determining from there if you’re attracted to someone or not. Other straight men find that concept ridiculous because they only want to date, have romances with, or have sex with biological females. Both are valid, but with that pre-mentioned rise in trans-acceptance comes the inevitable trans-acceptance bullying. This comes in the form of badgering straight people who don’t want to date biological men and smearing them as bigoted for… er… being straight.
In response… someone sought to clear up the confusion by creating a new label for this group of straight people: Super Straight. A description for straight people who are only interested in members of the opposite sex who are biologically the opposite sex and not just identifying and living life as such. Problem solved, right?
The origin of the term was just a dude named Kyle on TikTok proposing the concept but it resonated with so many straight men who were tired of not being heard or seen in their identification that, to them, straight means “not interested in males [even if you’ve had surgery to hide the most outwardly male parts of you]” that it spread, grew, and was of course condemned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8vQhkPnEE4
In an interview with Insider, he said, “I created it because I was sick of being labeled with very negative terms for having a preference, something I can’t control, and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance with that sort of stuff.”
Predictably, activists hated it, he was smeared as a bigot, and had to delete the original TikTok after many thousands of views because the death threats were getting to be too much and too scary. Reddit briefly had a new sub created called “r/SuperStraight” and it was since banned. At the time of this writing, all the search results for “super straight” are articles by woke scold finger waggers explaining why its not okay to say, to be, or to accept as a legitimate sexual preference.
The reaction to him and the concept on all platforms pretty much went like this:
An example that is representative of the common hater-reaciton:
Make this make sense??? there is so much wrong with this- just say you’re transphobic and leave…and don’t make up terms like “superphobic” and say you go through more??? also- definitely NOT a part of the LGBTQ+ community#superstraight is absolute bullshit pic.twitter.com/alq7uvTDzp
Having a genital preference is okay among the activists – they just say that having a biological-genital preference is not okay. In other words – you’re allowed to be attracted to feminine esthetic, physical features, breasts and vaginas, but if so, you *have to* also be attracted fake breasts and fake vaginas. This is because even thinking of these anatomy parts as “fake” is offensive to trans activism which rests on the dogma that sex is defined by words, not biology. So if a cisgendered woman gets breast implants, its okay to still call those “fake breasts” colloquially, but if you use the term “fake” to refer to a biological male (who identifies as female) and her breast implants, then you are basically de-humanizing her with the reminder of her surgical alteration.
Titania McGrath, a woke-parody account, illustrated the opposition to super-straight in terms of the woke-Left’s take on sexualities:
Blaire White – a trans woman (lookin cute in this video, so evidently I’m not SuperStraight) talks about it here –
“It’s not about homosexuality or heterosexuality. Stop promoting SEXUALITY to our children PERIOD. Let kids be kids.”
^The above text has been shared on facebook by over 14 thousand people over the past 2 days, mostly, I think, because it highlights the inherent absurdity in a practice that is all too commonly celebrated regarding the advocacy and glorification of children being sexually conditioned.
On it’s face, most people would say that’s a bad thing, but if you put it in the context of a pageant where a little girl is wearing bold eye liner, spandex showing lots of leg and upper chest, a big poofy haired wig, and is gyrating wildly for the amusement of a crowd of adults – suddenly for some reason a segment of adults advocate it as adorable and awesome. Likewise, if you put a male child in the same context of a “drag queen” show, where a little boy is wearing bold eye liner, spandex showing lots of leg and upper chest, a big poofy haired wig, and is gyrating wildly for the amusement of a crowd of adults – suddenly for some reason a segment of adults advocate it as empowering and awesome. These people who justify sexualizing kids for their own ideas of what qualifies as entertainment are worth exploring in contrast to the thesis of the meme above.
Recent controversies about touring editions of the “Drag Queen Story Hour”, where the highly sexualized art of males appropriating caricature characteristics of females and feminine sexual allure is performed while reading gender-fluid stories to kids at public library events as part of a larger discussion with the kids promoting growing up to be a gender fluid sex figure themselves, has provoked ire among parents who don’t want their young children socialized into sexual matters while emboldening other parents who are thirsty to virtue signal how open minded and gender-identity-inclusive they are by endorsing and attending the events.
Drag Queen Story Hour
This is an easy issue to rectify by just taking out the sex aspects of burlesque and prostitution signaling that is a part of drag and just make it a fun costume event where the man dressed as a woman isn’t trying so hard to evangelize gender fluidity but instead just exposes kids whom, with their parents encouragement, to the reality that performance and fun is not limited to traditional gender roles and that pretending to be a girl when you are a boy is a thing that exists, whether it appeals to you or not. There will still be parents who find it distasteful and offensive and the parents who have issues wrapped up in traditional societal staples can still fight-the-patriarchy or whatever by putting their kids in the non-sexual reading event without subjecting themselves to legitimate criticism. The fix is so easy in fact, that it begs the question of why these people are so eager to sexually propagandize little kids in the first place…
Then there’s the actual exploitation of a child combined with the sexual propaganda such as the case of a similar recent controversy regarding the use of children as sex objects for the ghoulish pleasure of adults is with the child drag kid known as Desmond Is Amazing. He’s an 11 year old with a spunky personality who likes to feel pretty and sexy dressing up as an adult woman and dancing for adoring crowds – which is a thing thats gonna happen from time to time and isn’t the worst thing a kid could be into, but the public showcasing of him as a sex object is the part that’s drawing criticism.
As LGBTQ+ activists excitedly promote the tenacity they see in many of themselves within young Desmond and view opposition to his drag performances as nothing but unreasonable homophobic small mindedness from haters of any person living outside the conformities of traditional sexual identity roles – this misses the mark entirely as Desmond isn’t opposed personally, it’s his suggestive and burlesque style stripper shows that are being glorified that people are outraged over. It would be one thing if a bunch of nosey haters heard about a childs drag show to friends and family and made it a national spotlight to campaign against but the reality is sort of the opposite: Desmonds Instagram (which a person is supposed to be over 13 years old in order to have, but there is no age verification process on instagram) promoted to his over 100,000 followers a performance he would be making at a Brooklyn gay bar where he did a stripper style dance in a crop top, blond wig, and full face of makeup collecting, also in stripper style, cash tips from the adult men in the audience. (video of another rendition of the same performance)
Desmond Is Amazing at 3 Dollar Bill in Brooklyn. Source: Instagram
While Yelp reviewers were disturbed by the show – no men were reported to have touched the child or shoved the money into his pants like regular-stripper performances – and he was wearing pants (not booty shorts or underwear or anything like that), so there wasn’t any actual abuse – just the simulated sexual portrayal of an 11 year old (or, it was last year, so some sources say he was 10 at the time) but these defense points don’t really go anywhere on a road to justifying it or do really anything at all to the folks who are more inclined to look at something like this and conclude that “Desmond needs saving“.
And while sexualizing a 10 year old girl in tight clothes and makeup for a dance performance at a bar where adults throw money at her wouldn’t be viewed favorably by public consensus and the same for a 10 year old boy doing the same thing – the loophole that is making people endorse Desmond is that he is a gay 10 year old boy dressing up as a girl to dance for an audience of adult men who throw money at him… This sort of performance sure is … different, that’s for certain, and differences from the expected and weird flamboyant boundary pushing performances are a thing that free societies tolerate without much backlash, but when it gets to the point of making highly publicized events out of strip-simulating 10 year olds, it becomes hard to advocate the “push societies arbitrary standards” meme and clouds any legitimate celebration that could be going to a spunky sassy young kid chasing his dream with overwhelming suspicions of why the hell would the adults facilitating and promoting him do it *this* way…
In June 2017, The Advocate, a major LGBT advocacy website and magazine, celebrated Lactacia. The boy has become a celebrity in the LGBT world. Hilton believed he was promoting and celebrating a young boy he considers inspiring to his identity group.
The LGBT world often struggles to separate its sexually explicit culture from its advocacy for equality and rights. In many ways they are incapable of understanding why the outside world would be appalled by explicitly sexual public displays. For them it must be out of malice, hatred, or ignorance rather than reasonable aversion.
Gay pride parades have long been extreme public displays of every form of sexual deviancy imaginable. Gay liberals see no distinction between their sexual selves and their everyday selves. They celebrate the merger of the two as identity and culture
While the LGBT world may not be intentionally trying to harm children or put them at risk, it is time leaders of the movement fully recognize the dangers of using young children to validate their sexual politics. To help further this discussion, we must be careful not to abuse the term “pedophile.” Overuse will diminish the impact of our message and make it more difficult to fight the legitimate scourge of child sexual abuse rampant around the world.
What we must do is call out the dangers of sexualizing children too early, making them vulnerable to people who do wish to exploit and abuse them. LGBT advocacy groups have a responsibility to recognize that every form of sexuality and gender identity can be freely enjoyed by adults in private, but should never involve children regardless of the context or motivation. While they intend to celebrate the uniqueness of the child, they in effect steal the child’s innocence and impose an adult identity onto him, all to validate their own insecurities. We cannot stay quiet and allow more children to lose their childhood to the dreams of progressives who only imagine the future while failing to grasp the trauma they impose in the present.
It all just comes back to the point: heterosexual or homosexual – how bout we just, like, *don’t* sexualize children?…
On the heterosexual cisgender side of child sexploitation that people rationalize into celebrating: while not in recent controversies that are in the news, the people who agree with this “don’t sexualize children” meme would most definitely agree that just as horrifying as the gay and gender-fluid child sexualization examples above are to them, that the “Toddlers in Tiaras” style pageants and competitions are equally horrible mistreatments of children. If you’re unfamiliar with those sorts of things, they do the same as the kids-in-drag style stuff, just with genetic female children instead of genetic-male children dressing like sex doll females.
Cheerleading camps and competitions and dance performances for kids under 12 that feature the same sort of cartoon-whore style makeup and costumes that feature short skirts, booty shorts, and plunging necklines – all things that only exist for the purpose of being visually sexually enticing – on the body of a prepubescent child are just as creepy and wrong to these people. And since “these people” are “most people” – again – why is this a thing that is condoned in any context or any gender?…
That’s probably why the meme above is going around. Repeat:
“It’s not about homosexuality or heterosexuality. Stop promoting SEXUALITY to our children PERIOD. Let kids be kids.”
I wish this dumb culture-war over redefining marriage would either end or be fought more wisely and logically by both sides, but since you dummies can’t seem to think straight and I have a peeve about rampant illogic, here I am again to remind you what should be obvious.
On the pro-redefinition side (ie: the winning side), the dumb argument goes something like “if you’re so outraged over homosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage then why aren’t you equally outraged over divorce??”. This takes many forms, often with specific examples of celebrities like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian’s super short marriages. The argument goes: if THEY can get married and divorced so easily, why shouldn’t people of the same gender get legal marriage rights? Adultery is brought into the mix too sometimes and neither makes any sense at all.
Bringing up divorce in the redefinition of marriage is like bringing up car accidents as evidence that cars should be redefined to include boats. The response should be a resounding: WTF?
What do car accidents have to do with anything? Yes, some cars get into accident. The relation of that to redefining what a car is, is nothing.
Yes. Some marriages similarly don’t work out. No one is celebrating that. So what is making you dummies think you have a good point there? (rhetorical question. the answer is that its a strictly emotional appeal that no one bothers to examine logically to understand what they’re actually saying the way i’m doing right now).
And no, it’s not “half of all marriages” that divorce as the myth goes (check the data yourself), but that’s a tangent anyway since same sex break-ups are no less frequent, so all you’re arguing on THAT front is to…er…add more divorce… Your point is supposedly “redefining marriage makes sense because there is so much divorce so lets add more divorce by redefining marriage”… you’re unmaking your point, bro.
But even though opposite-sex divorce isn’t an argument for same-sex marriage: why are people protesting against same-sex marriage and not protesting against divorce or adultery?…
Because there aren’t advocacy groups, parades, and entire political movements arguing for adultery and divorce to legally and socially change the definition and practice of marriage from what its always been (divorce and adultery aren’t new in the institution but redefining it from opposite sex unions is).
The “what about divorce” fallacy is used to say “why are you unfairly picking on us homos, you bigot jerks??” but outside of the tiny percentage of actual-bigot-jerks (the dozen or so people in the Westoboro cult) the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing has been entirely a reaction to an assault on said sanctity of marriage in the ways I listed.
So… that’s why… You’re on a side assaulting something large groups of people care about and…they’re resisting that assault on that thing they care about…
If there were advocacy groups and attempts to change laws to redefine marriage to include non-committed relationships, are you claiming that there wouldn’t be exactly the same push-back? Come on, people… THINK a little.
Except exactly that kind of critical thinking is prohibitive to the argument since the premise is claiming victimhood and thus doesn’t work if the pushback is legitimate.
The crappy thing that I am upset at the gay-activists over is the dishonesty and dirty trickery in making this otherwise neat-o societal and governmental change. It could have been a glorious thing if you used logic, reason, understanding and leading-by-example to advocate for such a shift. Instead, the dominant voices on the issue are bigoted hatemongers that claim there is no possible legitimate argument against their position other than being (ironically) a hatemongering bigot.
Back to the boats and cars analogy: This really annoys me as someone who thinks it would be an interesting societal change to include boats as “cars” because you are forcing me to endorse falsehoods for a good cause and doing so totally needlessly. I find it wildly distasteful that the immediate argument so often trends to hating on the traditional-car people for unprovoked and unreasonable reasons. I don’t care if you want to redefine cars to include boats but could we not be total jerks to the millions of people who are car enthusiasts and want to keep calling cars cars and boats, boats? Why do we need to call those car-lovers people anti-boat just because they love cars? How do you not see that it’s not hypocritical for them to even have enjoyed or currently enjoy boating while still thinking it is a better societal idea for the words to refer to distinct vehicles? Especially when they are for full legal privileges to both vehicles – wtf are you doing by needlessly hating on people who don’t hate you? You’re dividing America and being a jerk is what. Their position of not wanting the word “car” to refer to boats doesn’t ban boats or boating or water sports or anything at all. It just makes a separation with verbiage by using different words for things that are, derr, different. Why can’t we just logically argue with these car enthusiasts that it won’t be the culture shock or motorized-travel disaster that they think it will be if we redefine the word? Why do emotional appeals need to be used to smear the side resisting an arbitrary change that you just decided was important within the last 10 years (out of 100% of the existence of both boats and cars living harmoniously throughout history)?
Personally, I don’t give a crap about the word-opening cuz it pushes the culture and society closer to accepting and legally endorsing polygamy which is what I want for myself when I’m ready to settle down with my herem, but wanting something to happen doesn’t mean we need to be stupid about it.
Did you know that Goofy is an evil liar? I know…I was shocked too. but there is no other explanation for this tale of whoah. Heartbreak of the year… A reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) user who makes his living as Goofy in Disneyworld, had the pleasure of working with the most Charming Prince in all the land, but tragically…does not have good things to report…
I have met a ton of celebrities and a few times I was filmed for an interview where I had to interact with the celebrity. My best story would be when I had to work with Justin Beiber during the filming of the Disney 2011 Christmas Parade aired on Christmas day. There were a couple of Goofys working with him that day but here is me with him. He is an absolute asshole and a punk ass bitch. He kept saying the word “fag” or “faggot” at least once every sentence when I had to wait with him for his manager. He has no pride in his work as a performer and entertainer. He is not humble and the entire time I was hanging out with him, he was on his cell phone texting and barking orders at people in the most disrespectful way.
Itching for more punishment? Bill Nye the Science Guy is an elitist jerk as well:
Pretty much. I remember meeting Bill Nye while working an event and off stage he was pretty brusque and unfriendly. People always seem shocked that entertainers are busy, impatient, and short tempered just like anyone else…maybe more so since they have to deal with their on-stage/camera persona the rest of the time.
Prompting this reply:
My uncle is an astronomer who met Bill Nye after a TED conference once.He told me all about how much of a dick he can be offstage. Says he was probably one of the rudest people he’d ever met, thinking he was the most important person who was talking at the conference.Makes me sad, really. I lost so much respect for Mr. Nye when he told me that story.
Which got this reply:
I was Bill Nye’s banker a very long time ago. Without question, he was one of the biggest assholes I have ever had the displeasure to meet. Worst part is: I love what he does for science awareness.
EDIT: Here is my ‘best’ Bill Nye the Asshole Guy story:
I am a young banker, he walks up to my desk (we’d met several times before) hands me several blank deposit slips and says “fill these out for me, I need to make some deposits.”
I say, “Of course,” and begin doing as he asked even though he’s the only person I’ve ever had who was unwilling to write out his own deposit slips…whatever – he’s Bill Nye and I’m happy to help.
I was apparently taking too long, so he says, “You wanna hurry it up? We got a dollar waiting on a dime here.”
I apologize and tell him I am almost finished.
He then says, “In case you couldn’t figure it out: I’m the dollar. You’re the dime.”
I say, “Yes, I understood you,” and continue finishing up.
As I hand him his paperwork he looks me dead in the eye and says, “Because I am worth a lot more than you, get it?”
Literally snatched the deposits out of my hand and walked to the teller window.
Paul Wilson for the conservative media watchdog group Newsbusters is pretty upset over someone wishing they were gay:
Jessica Lowndes, an actress on the CW show ”90210,” is trying to break into the music world – by releasing a song where she ridiculously poses as a straight woman wishing she were gay.
Lowndes released a single with the catchy title ”I Wish I Was Gay,” about a woman reacting to being cheated on by her boyfriend. Lowdnes repeats the words ”I wish I was gay,” and expresses a desire to ”escape those boys.” The song also bizarrely suggests that lesbians are more faithful than straight guys, a claim even gay site Queerty mocked.
The music video features a provocatively dressed Lowndes teasing a man and flirting with her backup dancers before confronting him with his infidelity, shaving his legs and smearing his face with lipstick.
Lowndes’ single is part of a larger trend of gay themes being used in contemporary music. The Huffington Post notes that “gay themes are quickly becoming a ubiquitous element of contemporary pop music.”
Female musicians in particular are promoting homosexuality and bisexual behavior. Pop star Lady Gaga is notorious for her advocacy of homosexuality, and included homosexual themes in songs such as ”Born This Way.” Singer Katy Perry explored bisexual themes with her 2008 song ”I Kissed a Girl.” X Factor competitor Simone Battle recently released a song and music video titled “He Likes Boys,” which expressed a girl’s unrequited desire for gay guys.
While the trend of increasing homosexuality in pop songs is certainly worrisome, Lowndes’ latest propaganda effort would probably draw more of a following if her singing were competent. After listening to Lowndes’ lesbian fantasy, most listeners would probably echo the sentiments of one reviewer, who declared: ”I wish I was deaf.”
A reason to watch your health: Stayin away from teh ghayyy. Consider this headline: “Butch rugby player has stroke. wakes up gay and becomes a hairdresser”. Funny. but.. evidently it happened.
Rugby loving Welshman Chris Birch was a 26 year old musclehead with a job at a bank, had proposed to his girlfriend and weighed…er…a lot (the UK article uses “stone” instead of pounds. too much effort for me to convert). When he suffored a botched “hey guys, check THIS out” moment doing a back flip, he broke his neck and had a stroke. He woke up alive…but with a love for cock. “I was gay [when I woke up] and I still am” he says. “I wasn’t interested in women any more. I was definitely gay. I had never been attracted to a man before – I’d never even had any gay friends. But I didn’t care about who I was before, I had to be true to my feelings.”
Mr Birch’s astonishing change saw him break up with his fiancée, ditch his job in a bank to retrain as a hairdresser and lose eight stone in weight.
He has now moved in with his 19-year-old boyfriend.
The now ex-rugby player, a flanker with his local amateur reserve side, had been attempting a back flip in front of friends on a field when he fell down a grass bank, breaking his neck and suffering the stroke.
He was taken to hospital where his fiancée and family spent days waiting anxiously at his bedside before he delivered the shocking news.
Mr Birch recalled: ‘I was gay when I woke up and I still am. It sounds strange but when I came round I immediately felt different.
‘I wasn’t interested in women any more. I was definitely gay. I had never been attracted to a man before – I’d never even had any gay friends.
‘But I didn’t care about who I was before, I had to be true to my feelings.’
Before the accident Mr Birch, of Ystrad Mynach, South Wales, had spent his weekends watching sport and drinking with his mates.
But he said: ‘Suddenly, I hated everything about my old life. I didn’t get on with my friends, I hated sport and found my job boring.
‘I started to take more pride in my appearance, bleached my hair and started working out. I went from a 19-stone skinhead to an 11-stone preened man.
‘People I used to know barely recognised me and with my new look I became even more confident.’
And here you thought only marijuana would make you gay…
I dont think either cheapens marriage but idk anyone whose against same sex marriage that also thinks divorce is awesome and there should be more of it. do you? the “people get divorced after not being married long, so people of the same sex should marry” argument doesnt make sense to me and i think its a losing line for the cause.
I get bein annoyed with someone whose a famous millionaire cuz she made a porn but im just sayin that the “divorce is a reason same sex couples should marry” isnt a good argument only cuz it doesnt change minds. i mean, if thats the argument then no same sex couples can get divorced. Rosie Odonnel and her lady were together for a decade before they got married and then they divorced within a year. if someone told me that is a mockery of marriage i would say theyre being silly but the same applies to heteros who find their love isnt sustainable after a short time as well.
Would you find the same valid point (whether you agree with it or not) in a picture showing Rosie Odonnel making the reverse point? That’s how you know this is a non-argument.
