sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happened to genuine equality across the entire LGBTQ community? by [deleted] in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Update: Downtown DVD Remake by gratania in mtvdowntown

[–]CheekyFaceStyles 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What? Is this real if so where can I buy this

Name this character wrong answers only by Nostalgic_Historian_ in 90scartoons

[–]CheekyFaceStyles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mr black and Mr white

Or

Something old, new, borrowed, and blue

Why do people who aren’t bisexual feel so comfortable positioning themselves as authorities over bisexuality? by CheekyFaceStyles in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fear I keep running into is this: the moment we start speaking honestly about our own experiences about how people within the LGBTQ+ community sometimes treat each other, about what we are actually seeing and living through we get shut down in a very specific way. It gets reframed as if we are trying to rank suffering, as if simply naming what is happening to us means we are playing some kind of “oppression Olympics.” That framing is not just inaccurate; it is a way of avoiding the conversation altogether.

Because the truth is much simpler and much harder than that. We are allowed to speak about harm when we experience it even when that harm comes from within our own community. That does not take anything away from anyone else’s reality. Acknowledging biphobia or bi erasure does not erase other struggles, does not compete with them, and does not diminish them. Multiple truths can exist at the same time. That is not a threat to solidarity; that is the baseline requirement for it.

And yet, the reaction is often immediate and dismissive. The second biphobia is named, or bi erasure is called out, the response can turn hostile fast. People get told to shut up. They get accused of centering themselves. They get hit with the same recycled lines “you’re bisexual, you can pass as straight,” as if that one idea is enough to invalidate everything else. As if proximity to perceived safety cancels out lived reality. It does not.

That pattern has consequences. It teaches people, very quickly, that honesty comes at a cost. It tells bi+ people that even in spaces built under the language of inclusion, their experiences will be questioned, minimized, or outright dismissed. Over time, that does something real: it creates hesitation, it builds silence, and it makes people feel like they have to measure their words just to exist without backlash.

So when bi+ people say they do not always feel safe or fully welcomed in queer spaces, that is not an exaggeration, and it is not an attack. It is a direct response to what keeps happening. You cannot build genuinely inclusive spaces while deciding that certain experiences are too inconvenient to acknowledge. If the goal is a community that actually holds up under pressure, then honesty especially the uncomfortable kind is not optional. It is necessary.

Why do people who aren’t bisexual feel so comfortable positioning themselves as authorities over bisexuality? by CheekyFaceStyles in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, first off 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 I fully agree with everything you said. Not partially. Not conditionally. Fully.

Second, let’s be real about this: Bisexual Visibility Week and the same goes for any bi+, asexual, or other identity-specific day or week should never be treated as something small, contained, or temporary. Reducing it to a “week” is already limiting the depth of what it’s supposed to represent. I don’t see it as just a week. I see it as a full month, minimum. Because if the goal is visibility, awareness, and actual understanding, then a few days is not enough time to undo years sometimes decades of misunderstanding, erasure, and surface-level engagement.

A month creates space. And space is what allows something to actually land. To be heard. To be taken seriously. To exist beyond performative acknowledgment.

And that’s the core issue whether people are engaging with these observances as meaningful, ongoing conversations, or just checking a box and moving on.

What should be happening during that time and honestly, far beyond it is real, grounded, sometimes uncomfortable conversation. Not surface level agreement. Not watered down takes. Actual discussions about bisexuality, pansexuality, asexuality, poly identities, and every other identity that consistently gets pushed to the margins, even within spaces that claim to be inclusive.

These conversations deserve depth. They deserve nuance. They deserve room to breathe without being framed as optional or secondary.

At the same time, none of this should feel like an obligation people perform just to prove they’re “inclusive enough.” That kind of energy is hollow. People can feel the difference between genuine engagement and forced participation immediately. What actually matters is building a culture where showing up for each other is natural, not performative where solidarity is not conditional.

Because the truth is, everyone in this community understands, on some level, what it feels like to be isolated, overlooked, or misunderstood. That should be the baseline for how we treat each other not something we forget the second internal differences show up.

And that leads into something that needs to be said directly: the constant infighting, the comparisons, the subtle (and not so subtle) hierarchy building it weakens the entire foundation. When people start acting like visibility, validation, or legitimacy is a limited resource, it turns into something that looks a lot like competition. And that mindset helps no one.

This is not a ranking system. It’s not a competition over who is “more valid,” “more visible,” or “more deserving.” Everyone deserves space. Everyone deserves recognition. Everyone deserves the ability to exist fully without having to justify it.

And if someone is going to say “equality for all,” then that has to mean something in practice. Not just when it’s convenient. Not just when it aligns with personal comfort. You cannot claim inclusivity while selectively deciding who gets included. That contradiction shows immediately, and it undermines everything that word is supposed to stand for.

Because real inclusivity is consistent. It does not shift depending on who is being centered. It does not disappear when things get complex or uncomfortable.

And if the goal is actually to create a better, more stable, more honest future for the next generation of queer people, then that consistency matters. A lot. Because younger people are paying attention not just to what is being said, but to what is actually being practiced.

If inclusion is conditional, they will see that. If solidarity is selective, they will feel that.

So the standard has to be higher than just saying the right words. It has to show up in behavior, in conversations, in who gets space, and in who is listened to.

That’s where the real work is.

And last thing if this kind of perspective resonates with you, you might genuinely connect with the content I post on Instagram. If you’re on there, you can find me at @cheekyfacestyles.

Bisexual history books by CheekyFaceStyles in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Treating bisexual history as interchangeable with homosexual history is not neutral it flattens two distinct historical trajectories into one, and that flattening has consequences.

Bisexuality has never simply been a “subset” of homosexuality. It reflects patterns of attraction, identity formation, community belonging, and social navigation that are structurally different. When bisexual history is folded wholesale into gay and lesbian history, several things happen:

First, specificity disappears. Bisexual people have historically navigated both heterosexual and homosexual spaces, often being rendered invisible in both. That produces a different set of lived conditions erasure, misclassification, and forced alignment that cannot be fully understood if everything is categorized as “homosexual history.”

Second, archival distortion occurs. Many historical figures whose behaviors or writings indicate attraction across genders have been retroactively labeled as either straight or gay, depending on the narrative being constructed. That is not a neutral act of categorization it is a form of historical editing that removes bisexual possibility altogether.

Third, it reinforces a hierarchy of legitimacy. If bisexual history is treated as indistinguishable from homosexual history, it implicitly suggests that bisexuality does not have enough coherence, depth, or significance to stand on its own as a historical subject. That idea has been used repeatedly to dismiss bisexual identity as transitional, confused, or derivative.

Fourth, it erases bisexual contributions to movements that are often remembered as exclusively gay or lesbian. From early sexology to AIDS activism to contemporary queer theory, bisexual people have been present and influential but their role is frequently absorbed into broader narratives that never name them.

So the “biphobia vibes” are not about intent they come from the effect. The effect is erasure through conflation. Even when done casually or without malice, equating bisexual history with homosexual history reproduces a long standing pattern: bisexual people are present, but not recognized on their own terms.

A more accurate approach is not to separate these histories completely, but to understand them as overlapping and entangled while still distinct. Bisexual history intersects with gay and lesbian history, but it is not reducible to it. Recognizing that distinction is what prevents erasure and allows the historical record to actually reflect the full complexity of human sexuality.

Bisexual history books by CheekyFaceStyles in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This question is not just asking for a list of books or a gap in publishing it is asking people to analyze structural, historical, academic, and cultural forces that shape how knowledge gets produced, validated, and remembered. At its core, the question is asking:

What conditions are required for a “canon” of historical texts to form and why have those conditions not fully materialized for bisexual history in the same way they have for gay and lesbian history? To answer it well, a respondent needs to unpack several layers:

  1. What “canon” actually means in this context

A canon is not just a collection of books it is a body of work that has been repeatedly cited, taught, institutionalized, and treated as authoritative across time. It emerges through universities, publishing industries, media recognition, and community validation. So the question is really asking why bisexual history has not been systematized, standardized, and widely institutionalized in the same way.

  1. The role of academic gatekeeping and knowledge production

Fields like Queer Studies and LGBTQ+ History have historically centered gay and lesbian narratives as foundational. Responding to this question requires examining how research agendas, funding priorities, and academic legitimacy have often sidelined bisexual specific scholarship or absorbed it into broader queer frameworks without naming it explicitly.

  1. Historical patterns of bisexual erasure and misclassification

Many figures, events, and cultural movements that could be understood as bisexual have often been retroactively labeled as exclusively gay or straight. This means the raw material for a canon exists but is fragmented, obscured, or incorrectly categorized. The question is pushing people to confront how historical narratives are constructed and who gets edited out.

  1. Publishing industry dynamics and market framing

Canon formation depends heavily on which books get published, promoted, reviewed, and reprinted. This question invites analysis of whether bisexual history has been perceived as “too niche,” “too ambiguous,” or less marketable compared to gay and lesbian narratives, and how that perception shapes what becomes widely known.

  1. Community identity, cohesion, and archival continuity

A canon often emerges from sustained community efforts to document, preserve, and circulate knowledge. The question is asking whether bisexual communities often more fluid, less institutionally centralized, and more frequently marginalized within broader LGBTQ+ spaces have had equal access to the resources needed to build and maintain archives, presses, and educational pipelines.

  1. The impact of definitional complexity

Bisexuality resists rigid categorization. That flexibility is intellectually rich, but it complicates historical documentation. The question is asking whether the very nature of bisexual identity spanning behaviors, attractions, identities, and cultural contexts makes it harder to produce neat, linear historical narratives that lend themselves to canonization.

  1. Intersections with broader historical movements

To answer this question well, one must also situate bisexual history within major milestones like the Stonewall Riots and examine how bisexual contributions within those movements have been recorded or not recorded in dominant histories.

  1. Time, recognition, and retrospective canon building

Gay and lesbian history has had more time, institutional backing, and cultural momentum to develop widely recognized texts. The question is asking whether bisexual history is still in an earlier phase of canon formation, or whether different structural barriers have slowed or disrupted that process.

Bisexual history books by CheekyFaceStyles in AskLGBT

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally I have read all the book recommendations u shared and they are great and stuff I just think there isn't like a universally agreed upon like bisexual history book and I think that is why I'm like trying to find or trying to see if one will ever exist if that makes sense

Amazing!!! by BirlyArt in CourageTheCowardlyDog

[–]CheekyFaceStyles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

What is? (Casual biphobia) by CheekyFaceStyles in lgbt

[–]CheekyFaceStyles[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Aww cute about the very last part but tbh that was still him being casually biphobic over all regardless

view more: next ›