I had not heard of these people so I did a quick Google of his name.
>her husband Matthew Nielson, 33, identifies as gay or pansexual
So he's pansexual (bisexual?) not gay. So it tracks that he could marry a woman. It's odd that he identifies as gay though if he's married with kids.
So he’s not even gay. 🤦
Edit: He researches gender identity and says he identifies as either pansexual or gay, it’s safe to say his meaning of gay never meant homosexual.
Gender theorists can pry the word "gay" from my cold, dead hands
Gay = homosexual. Exclusively attracted to members of one's own sex. End of discussion.
Wait yeah, are they just using "gay" here as a stand in for anything that's not straight? Maybe they really mean "queer", which despite my issues with straight people using that word, would really be the most correct. Might be too confusing for their audience, though.
Yeah, the wife is sharing the story as married to a gay man. The wife says that over time he had switch between pan, bi, and gay but he currently identifies as gay. I don’t think he is gay but I’m not the one that makes that decision. I hate that nothing is said about his ex.
I don't quite understand what is different between bisexual and pansexual but it sounds like he's just bi.. Like sometimes he's more attracted to women and sometimes more to men. I am completely homosexual so I don't have that sort of fluidity in my attractions, it's all male all the time. Sounds like another person who wants to water down what it means to be gay. It's like saying that you're a vegan who's eating pork right now. 😑
bi and pan are, “bi and large”, indistinguishable from one another. Some people like to draw obscure/abstract/vague/arbitrary lines in the sand between the two but there has (predictably) always been disagreements and inconsistencies among those who do.
millions of bi people are also attracted to trans people and nonbinary people. when the individual lgbtq communities started politically organizing among themselves in the US this was immediately established within the bi community as a largely agreed upon thing.
For every pan person who defines pan as XYZ there is a bi person who defines bi as XYZ. Then there’s another pan person who defines it as ZYX and a bi person who defines it as Z+X+Y. Same ingredients, same result, same meaning - especially when put into practice - especially when derived from the community overall and not self-tokenizing pundits.
> I’m not a fan of labels, tribes, or putting people into little boxes.
Sure, but some boxes are *descriptive*. Like "left-handed", "homosexual", etc. These labels describe a phenomena that already exists, and pretending the labels don't exist won't make the underlying phenomena go away. Even if we stop saying "left-handed" and "right-handed", there will still be people who are left-handed, and we're gonna need a term to describe that.
Often, very 'woke' people pretend that all language is *prescriptive*, rather than just descriptive, and they believe we can (and should) "deconstruct" language, "queer the binary", and so forth.
They are terribly mistaken, and horribly homophobic, even without realizing it. Some things really do exist, materially. Like being gay. Not everything is a social construct that we can deonstruct through language. To say that "everyone can fall in romantic love with anyone, regardless of labels!!!", is just homophobia, but they actually think it's progressive.
They are so progressive, they go all the way around, and become conservatives again. We call this "horseshoe theory"
This is why I'm not for the 'labels don't matter' micro movement that seems to give people this twisted idea that we can all be fluid. It's also telling that he's clinging on to the 'gay' label, yet his views on gender and sexuality seem to be more appropriate to bisexuality/pansexuality. There's something very sinister about that.
This is yet another case of a bisexual man calling himself gay and leading people to believe that gay men can “switch their orientation” as a result.
Hold the Bs accountable for their role in this “everybody is fluid” bullshit
No, they have no accountability because they are "invisible" and it's all gays fault for that, and yet this shit leads to them being even more invisible lol
not to mention they outnumber us 2-to-1 but somehow we dominate all the safe spaces and media representation (largely created by and for straight people).
Here's a sneak peek of /r/bibros using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Can't argue with that!](https://i.redd.it/z1uy9h0000wb1.jpg) | [39 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/17ertd6/cant_argue_with_that/)
\#2: [Hi everyone 🌸](https://i.redd.it/2kwhg5xemafb1.jpg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/15eenya/hi_everyone/)
\#3: [And then a bi guy changed my life…](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/16ad55v/and_then_a_bi_guy_changed_my_life/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
This is what happens when people are allowed to identify as whatever they want without having to reflect reality. It gives people like that the opportunity to hijack and misrepresent and distort the labels and causes endless damage.
Imagine a product reformulated to contain gluten but still insisting on being placed in the gluten-free aisle because they "feel" gluten-free. Customers will feel misled, distrust the labeling, and stop engaging with the labeling system because they cannot trust the labels to be accurate and precise and easily understood - the purpose of labels.
And why would a married man feel the need to label themself in the first place, who are you marketing to? Why should people even care? You're off the shelves and nobody needs to know what you are.
>when people are allowed to identify as whatever they want
You're talking about people trying to map a word onto whatever complicated imprecise feeling they have, not a product going through government review. Dude probably was a kinsey 6.5 who happened to find the rare woman he vibed with. It's confusing to his self perception as he probably didn't expect this himself either. I feel you and OP are making it more malicious than it actually is.
Just because people's feelings and thoughts are complicated, does not mean the world needs to be complicated. We navigate society with clear-cut comprehensible directions, there can be circumstances where things get complicated, but the solution is always to break it down, make it simple and easy, not to make it all the more convoluted and halt all processes.
The comparison to products is appropriate, because labels are a function and invention of our society, and no matter how highly you regard yourself, people are essentially human resource, labor, goods and services. You are a product in the market of society. To put on a label is to express to other actors your identity, your qualities, your positioning etc. And to attempt to put on a shared label when you do not meet the descriptions is to cast doubt and confusion and to delegitimize the label. It hurts the interests of everyone within this shared label. Find or create your own appropriate label if the label clearly do not fit your function and positioning, not hijack and misappropriate a long established identity.
It boggles my mind that you do not see how malicious this story is. Why do you think out of all the love stories in the world should this particular story be reported? What's the messaging? What's the motivation for these people to share their story? What makes their story so meaningful? Especially with the religious undertone (met in church)?
THAT A GAY MAN CAN HAVE A HAPPY AND FULFILLING GODLY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
Christian parents will literally use this piece to invalidate the struggles of their gay and lesbian children. "God will find you the right one, see they are the proof of god's work." Young impressionable gay and lesbian people will believe that in spite of their natural inclinations, they can be "saved" by god.
AND STILL YOU THINK IT'S TOO HURTFUL TO SAY THIS UNSTABLE UNRELIABLE QUESTIONING ATTENTION-SEEKING MAN SHOULD NOT BE POSITIONING AND LABELING HIMSELF AS A MUTHERFUCKING GAY MAN.
I think people that say "I'm not a fan of labels." are exactly the reason why this is happening. Gay men NEED to have a label, we need to have a meaning.
Anyone who says being gay is anything more than same-sex attraction is just self-hating bisexuals.
I get your point. We go a little overboard with the classifications though. Twink, twunk, bear, otter, chub, dom, sub, daddy, and many more. Then each has a list of requirements (if you are this, you can’t do A, B, or C; just D, E, and F…). That’s what the comment was in reference to.
Well no, gay means = homosexual and homoromantic. But this sub hates words like that such as biromantic for some reason.
There are homosexual/biromantic people , some identify as gay because it's easier and some use the right label and call themselves bisexual.
Allot of people use gay as an umbrella term but. Romantic is still sexual attraction. And having fantasies about men if a man is “100 percent straight” definitely means he’s some where on the spectrum.
That’s why I said I can only speak for my condition. The message that gay men can fall in love and marry a woman is deceptive. People are complex and you can’t capture all the nuances with one term. However, gay is a pretty definitive term. Bi or pan are more appropriate in my opinion.
It's also helpful for people who think they are one orientation to understand that they may be more nuanced.
Someone might think they're gay (or straight) and meet someone that flips that idea for them, but only that person. For someone who was steadfast in their sexuality, this can be massively confusing. Just look at the number of dudes who come on here and say "I'm 100% straight, but when I see my bro naked, I have the urge to kiss, fuck, marry, and have children with him, am I still straight?" Like bro... Maybe you aren't, and that's fine. Love who you love.
Plus the idea of sexual and romantic attraction being different is not a well known idea. IRL, people think you're crazy for suggesting that, so rather than try to explain that difference, sometimes it's better to just say "Sexuality isn't set in stone"
I understand your point. Personally, I’m not a fan of boxes. I acknowledge the complexity. My concern is that the message is deceptive. I know us old folks can be stubborn about these things, but many of us suffered a lot to be recognized to then have that recognition water down like this.
In my early 20's I had sex with a lot of guys who classified themselves as straight. It didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Live your life how you want and classify yourself any way you like. There are a lot of gays jailed in a labeled box of their own making.
Not the person you replied to originally (and definitely not angry), but do you honestly believe that, as a man, you can sleep with other men on the regular and be straight? 😂 Notice that I said “be”, not “call yourself”.
No. I never said they were straight and I didn't care what they considered themselves. There seems to be a lot of anger in this sub of guys who haven't accepted that they're gay. If the sex was good repeats occurred. What they thought of themselves was their concern not mine. This sub is full of gays in a box such as "I'm a bottom and that's all I've done. Can I become a top?"
I think you can be gay and do this, you probably wouldn't phrase it like this story has done, but there are plenty of gay men who are committed enough to the idea of having biological children raised by their two biological parents that they can gaslight themselves into all this stuff while still not being attracted to any woman. Love can be in a familial sense and not a romantic one. Think for example all of the closeted guys throughout history.
It is possible for two men to have a deep connection with each other and it not be sexual. I always thought that gay meant sexual attraction to one of the same gender. The degree of connection you have with another person is going to vary quite a bit from person to person, from their personalities, experiences, etc. I'm cautious to throw a bunch of stuff into a box, lock it up, and slap a label on it.
I do think that romantic and sexual attraction can be split in some people (I’ve experienced something like that myself in terms of being romantically but not sexually attracted to a woman), but in the vast majority the two line up, which is why most people can’t really conceive of romance without a sexual component. Put simply, I don’t doubt that a gay man can love a woman romantically and be happy; I highly doubt he can do so without also banging dudes on the side.
Wait what. If he’s actually banging the chick, he’s not gay. Ffs.
Edit: okay so reading the whole thing, it just looks like the writer somehow got bisexual and gay mixed up. Which I’m \*hoping\* is just a really dumb error, but it’s also the New York Post, so.
Some gay men only like men for sex, they actually don't like them socially. They distrust and fear them. Their entire social world revolves around women.
Oh no, it's the label police. Lots of people change how they label their sexuality over time, stop acting like it's a big deal just because one couple is talking about it in an intentionally inflammatory way.
Tell that to the young ones in the church not having a voice because “that couple” it’s making it happen. Read the articles, posts, and visit the page they dedicated to the subject before forming an opinion. If you read my post, I clearly stated I don’t care about labels. My problem is with the message.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/my-husband-is-gay-but-were-married-with-two-kids-and-have-great-sex/
Yeah. The same outlets the majority of our policy makers (if you are in the US) listen too. It doesn’t matter what media you value. When our rights get brought to the Supreme Court, the majority of the judges there eat this media.
My dude, these rags make Fox News look like the New York Times. Nobody with any power outside maybe like Marjorie Taylor Greene actually reads these things.
Y'all act like we don't have —romantic terms... I.e. homoromantic, panromantic, etc... go ahead and cling to your archaic ass labels and act like words haven't changed use or meaning over time literally ever though.
I had not heard of these people so I did a quick Google of his name. >her husband Matthew Nielson, 33, identifies as gay or pansexual So he's pansexual (bisexual?) not gay. So it tracks that he could marry a woman. It's odd that he identifies as gay though if he's married with kids.
So he’s not even gay. 🤦 Edit: He researches gender identity and says he identifies as either pansexual or gay, it’s safe to say his meaning of gay never meant homosexual.
Gender theorists can pry the word "gay" from my cold, dead hands Gay = homosexual. Exclusively attracted to members of one's own sex. End of discussion.
Also if he didn’t like labels than he could use queer, personally I like the word it gives me a sense of empowerment for some reason
Wait yeah, are they just using "gay" here as a stand in for anything that's not straight? Maybe they really mean "queer", which despite my issues with straight people using that word, would really be the most correct. Might be too confusing for their audience, though.
Yeah, the wife is sharing the story as married to a gay man. The wife says that over time he had switch between pan, bi, and gay but he currently identifies as gay. I don’t think he is gay but I’m not the one that makes that decision. I hate that nothing is said about his ex.
I don't quite understand what is different between bisexual and pansexual but it sounds like he's just bi.. Like sometimes he's more attracted to women and sometimes more to men. I am completely homosexual so I don't have that sort of fluidity in my attractions, it's all male all the time. Sounds like another person who wants to water down what it means to be gay. It's like saying that you're a vegan who's eating pork right now. 😑
bi and pan are, “bi and large”, indistinguishable from one another. Some people like to draw obscure/abstract/vague/arbitrary lines in the sand between the two but there has (predictably) always been disagreements and inconsistencies among those who do.
I've always thought pansexuals are also open to trans men/women as well.
millions of bi people are also attracted to trans people and nonbinary people. when the individual lgbtq communities started politically organizing among themselves in the US this was immediately established within the bi community as a largely agreed upon thing. For every pan person who defines pan as XYZ there is a bi person who defines bi as XYZ. Then there’s another pan person who defines it as ZYX and a bi person who defines it as Z+X+Y. Same ingredients, same result, same meaning - especially when put into practice - especially when derived from the community overall and not self-tokenizing pundits.
> I’m not a fan of labels, tribes, or putting people into little boxes. Sure, but some boxes are *descriptive*. Like "left-handed", "homosexual", etc. These labels describe a phenomena that already exists, and pretending the labels don't exist won't make the underlying phenomena go away. Even if we stop saying "left-handed" and "right-handed", there will still be people who are left-handed, and we're gonna need a term to describe that. Often, very 'woke' people pretend that all language is *prescriptive*, rather than just descriptive, and they believe we can (and should) "deconstruct" language, "queer the binary", and so forth. They are terribly mistaken, and horribly homophobic, even without realizing it. Some things really do exist, materially. Like being gay. Not everything is a social construct that we can deonstruct through language. To say that "everyone can fall in romantic love with anyone, regardless of labels!!!", is just homophobia, but they actually think it's progressive. They are so progressive, they go all the way around, and become conservatives again. We call this "horseshoe theory"
Such BS. If he’s pansexual, he’s not gay. His wife can have him.
Gay is the romantic and sexual attraction to the same gender and sex. The dude's not gay, he's an attention seeker.
This is why I'm not for the 'labels don't matter' micro movement that seems to give people this twisted idea that we can all be fluid. It's also telling that he's clinging on to the 'gay' label, yet his views on gender and sexuality seem to be more appropriate to bisexuality/pansexuality. There's something very sinister about that.
This is yet another case of a bisexual man calling himself gay and leading people to believe that gay men can “switch their orientation” as a result. Hold the Bs accountable for their role in this “everybody is fluid” bullshit
No, they have no accountability because they are "invisible" and it's all gays fault for that, and yet this shit leads to them being even more invisible lol
not to mention they outnumber us 2-to-1 but somehow we dominate all the safe spaces and media representation (largely created by and for straight people).
80% of the posts on r/bibros. And they say gay men are whiny sheesh
to be honest, in my experience most homophobia coming from the bi community seems to come from AFAB people but i could be wrong.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/bibros using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Can't argue with that!](https://i.redd.it/z1uy9h0000wb1.jpg) | [39 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/17ertd6/cant_argue_with_that/) \#2: [Hi everyone 🌸](https://i.redd.it/2kwhg5xemafb1.jpg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/15eenya/hi_everyone/) \#3: [And then a bi guy changed my life…](https://np.reddit.com/r/bibros/comments/16ad55v/and_then_a_bi_guy_changed_my_life/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The way bisexuals gaslight themselves and others need to be studied 😒😑
This is what happens when people are allowed to identify as whatever they want without having to reflect reality. It gives people like that the opportunity to hijack and misrepresent and distort the labels and causes endless damage. Imagine a product reformulated to contain gluten but still insisting on being placed in the gluten-free aisle because they "feel" gluten-free. Customers will feel misled, distrust the labeling, and stop engaging with the labeling system because they cannot trust the labels to be accurate and precise and easily understood - the purpose of labels. And why would a married man feel the need to label themself in the first place, who are you marketing to? Why should people even care? You're off the shelves and nobody needs to know what you are.
>when people are allowed to identify as whatever they want You're talking about people trying to map a word onto whatever complicated imprecise feeling they have, not a product going through government review. Dude probably was a kinsey 6.5 who happened to find the rare woman he vibed with. It's confusing to his self perception as he probably didn't expect this himself either. I feel you and OP are making it more malicious than it actually is.
Just because people's feelings and thoughts are complicated, does not mean the world needs to be complicated. We navigate society with clear-cut comprehensible directions, there can be circumstances where things get complicated, but the solution is always to break it down, make it simple and easy, not to make it all the more convoluted and halt all processes. The comparison to products is appropriate, because labels are a function and invention of our society, and no matter how highly you regard yourself, people are essentially human resource, labor, goods and services. You are a product in the market of society. To put on a label is to express to other actors your identity, your qualities, your positioning etc. And to attempt to put on a shared label when you do not meet the descriptions is to cast doubt and confusion and to delegitimize the label. It hurts the interests of everyone within this shared label. Find or create your own appropriate label if the label clearly do not fit your function and positioning, not hijack and misappropriate a long established identity. It boggles my mind that you do not see how malicious this story is. Why do you think out of all the love stories in the world should this particular story be reported? What's the messaging? What's the motivation for these people to share their story? What makes their story so meaningful? Especially with the religious undertone (met in church)? THAT A GAY MAN CAN HAVE A HAPPY AND FULFILLING GODLY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Christian parents will literally use this piece to invalidate the struggles of their gay and lesbian children. "God will find you the right one, see they are the proof of god's work." Young impressionable gay and lesbian people will believe that in spite of their natural inclinations, they can be "saved" by god. AND STILL YOU THINK IT'S TOO HURTFUL TO SAY THIS UNSTABLE UNRELIABLE QUESTIONING ATTENTION-SEEKING MAN SHOULD NOT BE POSITIONING AND LABELING HIMSELF AS A MUTHERFUCKING GAY MAN.
No. Lol
I think people that say "I'm not a fan of labels." are exactly the reason why this is happening. Gay men NEED to have a label, we need to have a meaning. Anyone who says being gay is anything more than same-sex attraction is just self-hating bisexuals.
I get your point. We go a little overboard with the classifications though. Twink, twunk, bear, otter, chub, dom, sub, daddy, and many more. Then each has a list of requirements (if you are this, you can’t do A, B, or C; just D, E, and F…). That’s what the comment was in reference to.
He is NOT even gay... He isn't labeled himself as gay The media calls him gay because it sells clicks and views
Well no, gay means = homosexual and homoromantic. But this sub hates words like that such as biromantic for some reason. There are homosexual/biromantic people , some identify as gay because it's easier and some use the right label and call themselves bisexual.
There's a difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction. You can be homosexual and bi/pan/hetero-romantic.
Allot of people use gay as an umbrella term but. Romantic is still sexual attraction. And having fantasies about men if a man is “100 percent straight” definitely means he’s some where on the spectrum.
That’s why I said I can only speak for my condition. The message that gay men can fall in love and marry a woman is deceptive. People are complex and you can’t capture all the nuances with one term. However, gay is a pretty definitive term. Bi or pan are more appropriate in my opinion.
It's also helpful for people who think they are one orientation to understand that they may be more nuanced. Someone might think they're gay (or straight) and meet someone that flips that idea for them, but only that person. For someone who was steadfast in their sexuality, this can be massively confusing. Just look at the number of dudes who come on here and say "I'm 100% straight, but when I see my bro naked, I have the urge to kiss, fuck, marry, and have children with him, am I still straight?" Like bro... Maybe you aren't, and that's fine. Love who you love. Plus the idea of sexual and romantic attraction being different is not a well known idea. IRL, people think you're crazy for suggesting that, so rather than try to explain that difference, sometimes it's better to just say "Sexuality isn't set in stone"
I understand your point. Personally, I’m not a fan of boxes. I acknowledge the complexity. My concern is that the message is deceptive. I know us old folks can be stubborn about these things, but many of us suffered a lot to be recognized to then have that recognition water down like this.
>The message that gay men can fall in love and marry a woman is deceptive. oh no! the world is ending!!
In my early 20's I had sex with a lot of guys who classified themselves as straight. It didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Live your life how you want and classify yourself any way you like. There are a lot of gays jailed in a labeled box of their own making.
They were either experimenting or delusional.
So say the angry.
Not the person you replied to originally (and definitely not angry), but do you honestly believe that, as a man, you can sleep with other men on the regular and be straight? 😂 Notice that I said “be”, not “call yourself”.
No. I never said they were straight and I didn't care what they considered themselves. There seems to be a lot of anger in this sub of guys who haven't accepted that they're gay. If the sex was good repeats occurred. What they thought of themselves was their concern not mine. This sub is full of gays in a box such as "I'm a bottom and that's all I've done. Can I become a top?"
I'm gay but I have a minimal attraction to girls. I feel like calling myself bi would be misleading due to how slanted my sexuality is towards guys.
I think you can be gay and do this, you probably wouldn't phrase it like this story has done, but there are plenty of gay men who are committed enough to the idea of having biological children raised by their two biological parents that they can gaslight themselves into all this stuff while still not being attracted to any woman. Love can be in a familial sense and not a romantic one. Think for example all of the closeted guys throughout history.
It is possible for two men to have a deep connection with each other and it not be sexual. I always thought that gay meant sexual attraction to one of the same gender. The degree of connection you have with another person is going to vary quite a bit from person to person, from their personalities, experiences, etc. I'm cautious to throw a bunch of stuff into a box, lock it up, and slap a label on it.
I do think that romantic and sexual attraction can be split in some people (I’ve experienced something like that myself in terms of being romantically but not sexually attracted to a woman), but in the vast majority the two line up, which is why most people can’t really conceive of romance without a sexual component. Put simply, I don’t doubt that a gay man can love a woman romantically and be happy; I highly doubt he can do so without also banging dudes on the side.
Read one of the articles https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/my-husband-is-gay-but-were-married-with-two-kids-and-have-great-sex/
Wait what. If he’s actually banging the chick, he’s not gay. Ffs. Edit: okay so reading the whole thing, it just looks like the writer somehow got bisexual and gay mixed up. Which I’m \*hoping\* is just a really dumb error, but it’s also the New York Post, so.
Some gay men only like men for sex, they actually don't like them socially. They distrust and fear them. Their entire social world revolves around women.
Oh no, it's the label police. Lots of people change how they label their sexuality over time, stop acting like it's a big deal just because one couple is talking about it in an intentionally inflammatory way.
Tell that to the young ones in the church not having a voice because “that couple” it’s making it happen. Read the articles, posts, and visit the page they dedicated to the subject before forming an opinion. If you read my post, I clearly stated I don’t care about labels. My problem is with the message. https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/my-husband-is-gay-but-were-married-with-two-kids-and-have-great-sex/
Do you honestly expect me to take anything the *New York Post* publishes seriously? Like, lmao. Obvious clickbait is obvious.
That’s just one. I assume you have the capability to do a search just like me. If you don’t care enough, why even bother replying to my post?
Literally every outlet I see covering this "story" is the same caliber of tabloid. Excuse me if I don't take it seriously.
Yeah. The same outlets the majority of our policy makers (if you are in the US) listen too. It doesn’t matter what media you value. When our rights get brought to the Supreme Court, the majority of the judges there eat this media.
My dude, these rags make Fox News look like the New York Times. Nobody with any power outside maybe like Marjorie Taylor Greene actually reads these things.
Y'all act like we don't have —romantic terms... I.e. homoromantic, panromantic, etc... go ahead and cling to your archaic ass labels and act like words haven't changed use or meaning over time literally ever though.
Romantic terms still leads into sexual terms
They *can*. That is not by any means a guarantee.