I won't tell people not to read yaoi, but I must say I have found some yaoi readers actions uncalled for. As a gay man, it does make me a bit uncomfortable knowing non mlm(male loving male) people read and/or watch sexual things of gay men. I can't stop you though. Please just remember gay couples are not your yaoi couples. Don't ask who is the top and who is the bottom. That's inappropriate and rude. The idea that people look at me like that is very gross to me. It's fetishizing gay men. In my past relationship I was asked by a total stranger "So who takes the D?" and it was very uncomfortable for me and my partner. Gay men are not around for your fantasies and same goes for lesbians. I cannot exactly speak for them but please just don't fetishize. 😁

Absolutely get that! It would be weird if anyone asked me about my bedroom habits, regardless of how well they think they know me 😕 Only person who needs to know that is the person I'm dating.

I personally ended up reading BL because it's easier to find more "equal" relationships in the genre. Basically, less misogyny; although, as I'm sure you know, sometimes misogyny still pops up, just in different ways and equally toxic, if not more so for not being as easy to recognize 🙁

But, I think that's what's wonderful about the diversity of BL fans, especially as the LGBTQ+ community push to be recognized and INCLUDED in all parts of the industry as well as the fandom. We're learning and growing together, creating lists of inclusive titles, confronting toxic tropes, and supporting creators and fellow fans of all kinds.

So, if you're new to the fandom on MU here, welcome 😀 ; and, thanks for sharing your feelings! Hopefully, it helps provide some perspective and encourages more inclusive spaces for all fans!

That's kind of the point. How do you not understand this? However, I do have to agree on the other bullet that IRL fujishits are something else...




Of all the people who I've seen critical of the push for so-called "tolerance" of the LGTBBQ groups, the most vocal critics I have witnessed are legitimate fags and trannies because they just want to be left alone to live their lives without any publicity.

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 1:44 pm, Aug 31 2021

________________

Is there really a point to coming to a yaoi/yuri subforum and stating the obvious? The ones you have a problem with are the weirdos who only see gay couples in stories and probably ship real people together. And if they have problems with social boundaries to that degree, I doubt this "PSA" of yours will be of any use.


You do realize that most yaoi is made by women, for women, right? Just like a lot of lesbian porn is targeted towards men? People get off to a variety of things but most have the common sense to realize it's all fantasy and that real gay people aren't like in yaoi/yuri.

I'm not quite sure I understand how that works; but, I respect if this is your personal experience and hope you don't feel obligated to speak on the subject and expose yourself if you're not ready for that or want that sense of responsibility.



You do realize the majority of the publishing industry (like society) has long been biased against LGBTQ+ creators, right? You do realize that that's changing because LGBTQ+ individuals and allies are speaking out against that prejudice, right? The first lesbian story I ever read I found in my local library because it was considered a "seminal work of biographical fiction" BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A LESBIAN--"own voices" before it was a hashtag. To take that a step further, the book was in the "coming of age" section, not romance, not erotica; it was presented and understood as an LGBTQ coming-of-age story (which it was), which is likely how the library censors in my small Midwest town decided to accept it. Just because fetishization happens doesn't mean we have to pay into it; that's still a choice.

People want to be left alone and not have the entire world informed or caring about their actions in bed. The entire "Fag Pride" movement is basically the equivalent of worshipping some random nobody because they like ketchup on their eggs (I don't), organize their sock drawer (I do), and/or read Twilight (Have zero interest in it).


Oh, yes, I'm sure one can see the oppression that exist in publishing with gay writiers like Mentaiko and the group who made Massive: Gay Erotic Manga and the Men Who Make It, lesbian artists like NAGATA Kabi and NAKAMURA Ching, and tranny autobiographies like with Hanayome wa Motodanshi.

That's also excluding prominent series, created by prominent mangakas, staring or centering around sexual-minorities like Ghost in the Shell, Family Compo, Blue Drop, My Two Wings, Sailor Moon, The Space Between, Devilman, Tokyo Babylon, MW, Vandread, Genesis of Aquarion, and Dragonaut. Hell, Neji's entire catalog is nothing but yuri stories, and it seems like she has zero trouble pumping out one right after another.

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 5:53 pm, Sep 1 2021

________________

Denouncing LGBTQ publicity because of a vocal minority is a huge reach. Staying quiet will only allow homophobes to control 100% of the narrative. So whether it's about your sexuality, or any other aspect of your life, you need to express it or risk someone putting words into your compliant mouth.

WHAT FUCKING NARRATIVE?!?

________________

You're expressing outrage at something that's solely meant as fetish fuel. Yaoi and yuri are extremely non-realistic and (in some cases) idealized views on gay and lesbian people to begin with. It's not supposed to be an accurate portrayal of gay relationships. It's like getting angry at Disney for not portraying the role of a princess accurately.

I don't see a connection between your book anecdote and what's discussed here, or why you're bringing up media created by LGBTQ people into a discussion about media created largely by straight women, largely for straight women.

And again, anyone who looks at yaoi and thinks it's appropriate to ask random gay people who the "bottom" is, is already poorly socially adjusted and a tired "PSA" won't fix them.

Edit: "at", not "as".

Last edited by sweetdevil at 9:04 am, Sep 2 2021

One side avoiding publicity doesn't mean the other will do the same. The narrative is the 'why'. If LGBTQ doesn't control its own narrative then its' opponents will create it for them. Many people believe pedophilia to be intertwined with LGBTQ, and if it's not rejected by the community itself then it becomes the narrative.
Unless you're stuck in echo chambers or selectively surfing the internet to feed a confirmation bias, then it's obvious that the 'fucking narrative' around LGBTQ is contentious and can either harm or help their public image.

Do you honest think there's an "army" of people out there who make it their daytime job to hunt down and expose anyone who likes roosters? I only know of ONE organization that does that, and they got nailed for it.


Gee, one can wonder why.


Why not take it one step further and have the "LGBTQ++^R Community" do their own clean-up initiative and remove the "bad apples" that are sullying their reputation? If it's such an "uphill" battle due to a tarred image, why not abandon that front altogether since it's a waste of time and focus more building themselves up? Instead of, you know, physically assaulting people.


Yes, it's so "contentious" that Hollywood is promoting Fag pride, comics are promoting Fag pride, vidya is promoting Fag pride, the British government, the EU. How can one be facing discrimination and depicted as a harmful stereotype when it seems like every group on planet Earth is willing to fall on their swords to protect you, and silence anyone who even questions the act?

Honestly, the overwhelming majority of these issues wouldn't even exist if people went back to minding their own business and being left alone.

________________

Yes, if you're living in a dystopia or some kind of perceived utopia. People don't simply leave other people alone (for example the abortion issue in current news).

I can't really consider incompetents like 'million' moms, and whatever other organized groups trying to fight any non-hetero exposure, as an army. Doesn't mean they don't exist and have very loud voices thanks to social media.

You cannot take those few examples of yours as microcosms that reflect the LGBTQ community as a whole. Our heteronormative society has an abundance of rape, pedophilia, incest, sex trafficking, violence etc.. yet you have children being exposed to heterosexuality through huge household names like Disney. In this case why not fight exposure to sexual themes as a whole rather than focus on the 'negative impact' of homosexual representation?

Enjoying your eggs with ketchup will not make you a target of physical violence, and execution in some places. You will also not have people creating/funding groups who have made it a mission to stop you from eating eggs with ketchup.
I don't see any compelling reason that would make homosexual exposure/representation a bad thing. Just practice what you preach; the LGBTQ community will continue to 'push for tolerance' and you should mind your business and let them live.

How is the issue over a medical procedure, made without the consent of all parties involved, that require the need for medical facilities and personnel, that requires a legal fiction to exist to be performed for any other reason besides medical emergencies or assault, that results in the death of a child, at all equivalent to who you love while in bed?


IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME WORRYING ABOUT SOME SELF-IMPORTANT BUSYBODY WHO NEEDS A GOOD DICKING?!?


Then why doesn't the "LGBTSCEXXX Community" ever disavow those incidents or those people involved, or go through an audit to remove even more potentially dangerous people within their group? I see those calls to action for everyone who even hints at having a "fringe" ideal, so why don't they do the same to be an example of what to do? Yes, like every group, there is a minority that ruins the public image of said group; however it seems like there's been a recent (As you put it) "narrative" that you have to accept the "Fag pride" community, warts and all, or your "homophobic".


No, we don't. That's just the media making money because more people are more interested in negative news than positive news. Until everyone finally lost it last year from being locked up and decided to go full Woodstock, crime had been in almost a 30 year decline. To bring it back to Japan, they're even more conservative the U.S. and their numbers all around are far lower than ours.

Majority of the "crime epidemics" that you hear in the media ranting on about fall into the categories of (A) sensationalizing otherwise mundane changes, (B) isolated incidents, (C) politicians and government agencies trying to justify their existence, and/or (D) the media looking for money in the highly competitive 24/7 news cycle.


Are you seriously conflating biology with sexual fetishes?


The USSR actually did that, with mixed results, once Stalin had enough of the disaster that Alexandra Kollontai.


Can you actually point to the "negative impact" people are complaining about? Also, do you know the difference between four loves: storge, philia, eros, and agape?


Yes, it will.


They sure seem to be trying.


I can think of one good reason, it's not a good idea to be exposing kids to sex in the first place. They're too immature to fully grasp the subject and all it implies, and the only person who can say otherwise is the parent; not you, nor I, nor mass media, nor any governing body. Parents on the ones who should control what their kids are exposed to, and it's not anyone's responsibility to assume otherwise.


And, why don't you do the same by being tolerance of others of differing views instead of shouting them down because they disagree with yours, or telling them to shut up and know their place despite bringing forward real life accounts that directly contradict your beliefs?

________________

The abortion is not in itself the issue here, but the fact that uninvolved parties are involving themselves in what should be between the woman and her medical professional. Essentially not 'minding their own business' as they should.


When they're spreading misinformation and libel that can affect the impressionable and contribute to discrimination then there should be worry.

That's an issue for law enforcement, and only when that 'potential' manifests into actual danger considering our reality is not the same as Psycho Pass. The last thing you need is a 'thought police'.

does not make the rate of those crimes fall to zero. If you're not going to have heterosexuality take the fall for those crimes then you can't tie criminal acts from LGBTQ members into homosexuality. It reflects the individual not their sexuality.
I can agree with the censorship of sexual exposure as a whole not being viable. The issue is the contrasting reactions for even the mildest homosexual representation. Many parents wouldn't blink an eye if their child watches prince charming give the princess a kiss at the end of the movie, but would be outraged if that same thing played out between two men or women. While they are not wrong to feel 'wronged' it is not their place to have even the most normal representation removed from the public eye just because it makes them uncomfortable.

I'm not trying to change anyone's world view. I do have an issue with those who take their different views and channel them into actions which consequently affect others negatively. I guess the overarching idea is 'minding your own business'. And those people were doing far more than just eating those eggs.

Wait, what about the father? It's his child, too. It's HIS seed that got the girl pregnant in the first place.


Why is it companies, decades ago, learned how to solve this relatively simple issue; yet, today, idiots who care about how their fetish is viewed and think it is the most important issue in the world cannot bring themselves to come to the same conclusion?


So, you're going to protect people who are using the "LGB7+1=8 Community" as a shield to hide from law enforcement?


And, that's never going to happen. Humans are irrational stupid selfish creatures. Even the the nations that have almost zero crime like Japan and Switzerland, crime still happens for one reason or another. We can create as many deterrents as we want, but that's never going to stop someone from committing a crime if they really want to do it, or see it as more beneficial than following the law, or even consider the law to be pointless in the first place. Particularly in the last case, that's why Prohibition failed back in the 20's. Seriously, the Average Joe ended up becoming a criminal because he bought a jug of juice and didn't happen to finish drinking the entire thing within the week, so it fermented and became wine, thereby making him as guilty as Al Capone or Two Gun Crowley. So, at that point, why gave a single damn about the law?


Are you seriously trying to tie one's sexual activities to whether or not they are a criminal and how "fair" they are treated? Okay, let's play this game. A heterosexual gets drunk and rams into a light post, but luckily no one is hurt. Now, you have a homosexual who kills a person in cold blood. Who gets a more severe punishment, the drunk or the murderer? Now reverse that scenario, the homosexual gets drunk and runs into a light, and the heterosexual murders someone. DOES ONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCES EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF HOW THEY ARE JUDGED?! And, the most important part is how can you determine which is the breeder and which is the faggot without someone identifying it for you, or the criminal saying so themselves? Suppose they were doppelgangers, both looked 100% alike, how do you know that one likes to suck cock while the other wants to squeeze some tits?


A TV station, who's demographic is older conservative women, that mostly airs your dime-a-dozen romance and mystery films, is surprised that their viewership demographic has zero interest in commercials with dykes. Why is that surprising? It's like a Jew going to Argentina and expecting to be welcomed with open arms, or a black man wanting to immigrate to South Africa.


Where do you live where this occurs? I grew up in conservative Christian household and my folks had zero problems showing me The Bird Cage. Also, have you actually WATCHED media prior to the past decade, two men kissing has been a recuring gag almost as old as time:


That's not to mention that no one had a problem with all those times Bugs was in drag:


No one really reacts to this stuff as much as you think. And, the only time that they do react is when it's shoved down people's throats, or is so egregiously offensive that even trannies and fags hate it, like what recently happened with Q-Force.




No, they have that right. "Freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom from consequences", as I keep hearing. The Hallmark Channel is a station aimed towards Conservative older women, and those women pay money to access the channel for that content. As such, those women have all the power in the world to dictate what material will and will not air on that station. After that commercial aired, which obviously offended people because they don't go to the Hallmark Channel expecting that kind of material, then you have the controversy of them demanded that the station pull the ad. Now, the Hallmark company has two decision, either refuse to continue airing the ad and secure their viewership, OR ignore the backlash and face the possibility of those people cancelling their subscriptions or going to one of their competitors.

It is that simple. Now, all of that is also sidestepping the simple fact that the ad still exists. Hallmark doesn't retain the rights to it, Zola does. And, wouldn't it be a better idea to take that ad and air it on a station that does have viewers who wouldn't be offended over the ad's content, while making a different commercial that appeals to the viewers of the Hallmark Channel?


No, that ad WAS the business of the viewers for that channel. They paid money to access the specific content supplied on the Hallmark Channel. If they see content being produced on there that does not reflect what they like or approve of, they have every right to express their disapproval, including up the point of denying the Hallmark Channel any further compensation for their access to it. That's just basic economics, with zero politics behind it. It's like going into a Chinese restaurant, who's always served you Chinese, that suddenly declares that they're only serving Italian from that point forward. At that point, why would you continue spending your money there when they're not giving you the food that you want? It doesn't matter how much history you have with the restaurant, how great the food is, or being "xenophobic". You want Chinese, and they don't have it. Therefore, you no longer spend your money there.

If you want another way to look at it, there's a reason why people keep getting up in arms when most newer video games keep spitting on the fans.

________________