The LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide

IamStryker

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
19,717
Reaction score
5,158
https://www.healthline.com/health/lgbtqia-safe-sex-guide#why-we-need-it

This article has been in the news lately and met with a bit of controversy. Some claimed that they were trying to rename genitals like "front hole" instead of vagina. This didn't appear to be true but I found it pretty interesting.

Here is one quote from the article,

"These guides also often unnecessarily gender body parts as being “male parts” and “female parts” and refer to “sex with women” or “sex with men,” excluding those who identify as nonbinary. Many individuals don’t see body parts as having a gender — people have a gender."

I have some disagreements with what they are saying but am interested in what you all think.
 
They've taught safe sex for years but Gay male sex is not very safe. Their HIV and STD rates are off the charts.
 
It is confusing, hope this helps:

 
What were you searching for when you came across that "safe sex guide".
 
Crazy people being crazy people. Just move on.
 
Imagine kids today becoming adults after being indoctrinated for 12 years over this, they won’t consider us humans if we disagree with them.

Thanks god, I didn’t grew up in the generation of LGBT.
 
https://www.healthline.com/health/lgbtqia-safe-sex-guide#why-we-need-it

This article has been in the news lately and met with a bit of controversy. Some claimed that they were trying to rename genitals like "front hole" instead of vagina. This didn't appear to be true but I found it pretty interesting.

Here is one quote from the article,

"These guides also often unnecessarily gender body parts as being “male parts” and “female parts” and refer to “sex with women” or “sex with men,” excluding those who identify as nonbinary. Many individuals don’t see body parts as having a gender — people have a gender."

I have some disagreements with what they are saying but am interested in what you all think.

I see it as somewhat unnecessary (at least with regard to the proclivities of about 98-99% of the population), but ultimately unoffensive. It's correct in that they are plenty of people who don't gender-ize bodily organs, but at the same time a penis/ballbag are biologically male, and a vagina/ovaries are biologically female. So referring to them as such is correct, even if it may contravene the sensibilities of some people.
 
Seems that they updated it to include the word "vagina" along with "front hole", probably due to the outrage from feminists. It's completely embarrassing that they're including crap like "non-binary" and "genderqueer" as if they're legitimate. This "gender identity" business has really become a secular religion of sorts, with a LOT of money behind it, in a way I would say that LGBTQ+ has become the evangelicalism of the left. And the social engineering they're doing with kids is disturbing as hell.
 
Seems that they updated it to include the word "vagina" along with "front hole", probably due to the outrage from feminists. It's completely embarrassing that they're including crap like "non-binary" and "genderqueer" as if they're legitimate. This "gender identity" business has really become a secular religion of sorts, with a LOT of money behind it, in a way I would say that LGBTQ+ has become the evangelicalism of the left. And the social engineering they're doing with kids is disturbing as hell.

I'm curious, since you don't think "non-binary" is legitimate, how else would you describe someone whose anatomy or chromosomal makeup is sexually ambiguous? And, further, whose brain or sense of self doesn't seem to fit into either gender?
 
I'm curious, since you don't think "non-binary" is legitimate, how else would you describe someone whose anatomy or chromosomal makeup is sexually ambiguous? And, further, whose brain or sense of self doesn't seem to fit into either gender?

Too obvious.
 
Seems that they updated it to include the word "vagina" along with "front hole", probably due to the outrage from feminists. It's completely embarrassing that they're including crap like "non-binary" and "genderqueer" as if they're legitimate. This "gender identity" business has really become a secular religion of sorts, with a LOT of money behind it, in a way I would say that LGBTQ+ has become the evangelicalism of the left. And the social engineering they're doing with kids is disturbing as hell.
I've never heard this. So some feminists don't like the term vagina? They prefer the term front hole for sex education?
 
I'm curious, since you don't think "non-binary" is legitimate, how else would you describe someone whose anatomy or chromosomal makeup is sexually ambiguous? And, further, whose brain or sense of self doesn't seem to fit into either gender?

If their anatomy or chromosomal makeup is sexually ambiguous, the word for that is intersex. And if their "sense of self" doesn't match with a gender? I would describe them as a person who doesn't fit into traditional sex-bases stereotypes. A gender non-conforming person if you will. Actually most of the time I would call them a girl with short hair, because I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of non-binaries, genderqueers, gender-fluids etc are just that - young women who don't conform to gender stereotypes that have been mind-fucked into believing that they were "assigned" the wrong body.
 
The mentally ill gonna mentally ill.
 
I've never heard this. So some feminists don't like the term vagina? They prefer the term front hole for sex education?

No no man it was the trans activists who want to use "front hole". I guess the feminists were sharing this same sex guide online and getting pissed and talking mad shit so I think this org edited it. I say that because I thought I saw some screenshot that was a little different about the whole front hole thing, and the actual guide the TS linked says it's been edited. I've seen them flipping out over medical agencies and this big midwife org referring to breastfeeding as chestfeeding lmao the Newspeak is getting to be a bit much.
 
Back
Top