this post was submitted on
540 points (84% like it)
662 up votes 122 down votes
shortlink:

ainbow

unsubscribe13,404 readers

A free area for the discussion of issues facing those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and all other sexual or nonsexual orientations and/or gender identities. Post links to articles, self-posts, photographs, experiences and whatever else is important to your experience of queer life. We encourage you to treat others with respect, start and/or engage in robust discussion and interact with the community. The more we know each other, the better we'll get along.

Want flair?

Get it up there ⇧ by clicking the (edit) button! Don't know the flags? We have these available:

  • Rainbow flag
  • Transgender flag
  • Bisexual flag
  • Asexual flag
  • Genderqueer flag
  • Pansexual flag
  • Ally flag

In the box below the flag grid, you can set custom hover text for your flair! You can put whatever you like; explain what the flag means to you, tell us where you're from, what you like, whatever! And to view other users' hover text, just hover your mouse over their flag. (Note: if someone hasn't specified hovertext, you won't see anything by their flag.)

We also have spliced versions of the trans and genderqueer flags (thanks, WTFcannuck!), for those with dual citizenship. Choose whatever flag feels right; this isn't an ID card, it's just a fun way to show your colors.

Want these flags on your subreddit? They're open source! Check out the /r/ainbow flair on github.

A note on moderation

This subreddit is lightly moderated. The community actively self-moderates offensive comments with downvotes, but comments are not removed except for violations of site-wide guidelines and as outlined below. If you prefer a more hands-on approach, try /r/lgbt. /r/lgbt requires trigger warnings, and removes comments and users for violations of their rules, which are detailed in their FAQ.

This subreddit is a free speech zone (although gratuitous eye candy is specifically discouraged). It is also lightly moderated, which means that it's up to you the community to downvote offensive posts and comments, and upvote constructive content. Please use your voting and posting powers to create the community you want to see.

NOTE: Comments and/or posts that threaten violence, incite violence, expose personal information about others without their consent, or contain illegal content will be removed. Please use the "report" button on only these types of posts. Contact the moderators if a post/comment has been removed in error.

/r/ainbow FAQ (work in progress)

Related Subreddits (WIP)

Related Projects

R/AINBOW IRC

#rainbow on irc.snoonet.com

created by synsparka community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

539
540

Wtf You rather? (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by dezine

all 176 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old
best

[–]Exogenic 34 points35 points ago

Well, depends on what I play. Some sports really take a toll on the body; I don't want to be a shambles with no knee cartilage when I'm 35, you know?

[–]hoopycatstrong enough for a man, pH-balanced for a woman 27 points28 points ago

Poker. Generally pretty safe, especially if you take good care of your wrists and buttocks.

(I'm pretty sure it's a sport.)

[–]redearth 7 points8 points ago

I dunno... I think slouching in a chair in a dark room for 15 hours a day for days on end probably isn't too good for the body, either.

How about archery instead?

[–]Zhang5Male, Game Designer/Programmer, New Englander, Furry 2 points3 points ago

I think slouching in a chair in a dark room for 15 hours a day for days on end probably isn't too good for the body, either.

But I'm already on Reddit. Besides, poker would mean that I interact with more people face-to-face. Plus being a famous professional at it would mean I'm likely wealthy (being famous would imply having won a lot especially for something like poker). So I could afford the doctors.

[–]Disposable_Corpus 2 points3 points ago

You can play poker while standing in the sunshine. Just get a table that's tall enough.

[–]DrDWayneLove 2 points3 points ago

World famous gay archer. I could do that.

[–]Vituperat 0 points1 point ago

I think I do that anyways... Reddit should be a sport than!

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

I'd suggest curling; it's like hockey, but badass.

[–]Shieya 2 points3 points ago

If you don't have to change your shoes for it, it's not a sport. :P

[–]error1954bi-furious! 7 points8 points ago

Sweet, I'd be a gay professional bowler. As long as I get tons of money.

[–]nightzirk 7 points8 points ago

I always had the impression that homosexuality was a prerequisite to professional bowling.

[–]leBMD 1 point2 points ago

That, or a sweet mustache.

[–]Aleriya 3 points4 points ago

I don't know that I'd want to be famous, either. I like being able to buy groceries without it causing a ruckus.

I'd definitely pick golf as my sport of choice, though. Not only is it easier on the body that most other sports, you can continue to compete and earn money even as you age.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

And it's Scottish! True, the pink kilt and glitter will probably rub some people the wrong way, but the putting jokes will be totally worth it.

[–]Tself 81 points82 points ago

I'm not even sure what to think of this. I don't want to be the guy that "is just looking for excuses to be offended" but this left a sour taste in my mouth.

[–]SupermanV2 77 points78 points ago

I was told it was more of a salty taste.

[–]Tself 49 points50 points ago

Come find out.

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 23 points24 points ago

...If you will.

[–]Tself 25 points26 points ago

Careful what you wish for, I'm the creator of /r/gaykink heh.

/shamelessplug

[–]SamuraiStormtrooper(Insert Secret Flag Message Here) 46 points47 points ago

More like shameless butt plug.

[–]losanum 4 points5 points ago

Knew this was coming!

[–]Disposable_Corpus 13 points14 points ago

...among other things.

[–]CONGARTThe bear with the golden flair 7 points8 points ago

This thread. http://i.imgur.com/i3JBm.gif

[–]Disposable_Corpus 2 points3 points ago

That second .gif has me giggling incessantly.

[–]nightzirk 2 points3 points ago

I'll go dickless for Michael Chiklis, AMAA

[–]Tself 4 points5 points ago

*Pup-tail butt plug thankyouverymuch.

[–]SamuraiStormtrooper(Insert Secret Flag Message Here) 2 points3 points ago

Probably the best way.

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 8 points9 points ago

It's okay. I suspect I'm not your type. ;)

[–]Pixelpaws 4 points5 points ago

This is a thing? This is a thing!

[–]Daemon_of_Mail 0 points1 point ago

I shall test this theory; remind me to get back to you on it.

[–]silverwolf761 11 points12 points ago

I personally don't think it's automatically that bad. Let's face it, homosexuals still face a lot of social stigma they have to overcome that one needs to consider in a "what if" scenario. It's like being disappointed because your son or daughter turned out gay isn't NECESSARILY bad (stay with me here...) because they may get a rougher time from other people vs if they were straight. IMO, it could just be a perceived ease with which you could go through life as one vs the other.

Also, I really have little interest in being famous, so there's that as well.

[–]grapthorLike a duck... 5 points6 points ago

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended read on the situation, but I agree: that's a possibility. I mean, if, say, C.C. Sabitha came out as gay chances are he'd lose a lot of privacy and the press would be all over him, conservative talkers would be questioning him as an appropriate role model for children (and therefore digging every single skeleton out of his closet). Every guy he's caught with would spawn rumors. Then there's the problem of trying to find someone willing to be with you through all that (assuming you hadn't found someone before it all went down). It's intimidating and off-putting to a lot of people. On the other hand, he's well paid, he's doing what (I assume) he loves. He'll be able to retire early, and it's not exactly a bad life in general.

Or you could give it all up for a simple life, free of all that scrutiny and attention.

[–]pareofducks 3 points4 points ago

Nice to see someone who realizes that "offense" can be a two-way street.

[–]scoooot 8 points9 points ago

I don't want to be the guy that "is just looking for excuses to be offended"

Don't ever let anyone bully you with that idea.

That question is clearly homophobic.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] 48 points49 points ago

What, is it homophobic now to suggest that there are significant downsides to being gay?

Let's name a few:

  • Difficulty reproducing.
  • Discrimination ranging from rare to rampant, depending on cultural context.
  • Increased risk of contracting STDs.
  • Constant reminding that you are inferior or un-admirable in everything you do.

I'm lucky — I'm not affected much by any of those things, despite being a gay guy, but you would have to be stupid to not see that life would be much easier if you were straight. Then again, based on your general conduct, I'm not opposed to such a suggestion.

[–]yourdadsbff 7 points8 points ago

The only thing I'll disagree with in this comment is the first bullet point, insofar as that only counts as a "downside" to those who wanted to biologically reproduce with their SO in the first place.

Also, I guess, if you're not the type to have a lot of anal sex, you may not have as much of an increased risk of contracting STDs. The risk of HIV transmission especially is still higher for MSM than for any other subgroup (at least in the US, I dunno about the stats in Europe) but heterosexuals are certainly at risk to contract STDs as well. For instance, "The fastest growing group of people infected with hepatitis B are heterosexuals."

Frankly--and I realize I say this from a somewhat privileged position--I think one of the biggest downsides to being gay is the shrunken dating pool.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] 4 points5 points ago

It doesn't matter that the risks can be mitigated, they still exist and are statistically much more significant than for non-gays. There's no point in trying to deny that. It's great that we know how to manage these things, but that's it.

[–]yourdadsbff 2 points3 points ago

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they can be entirely mitigated. I was just trying to point out two things: first, that while it's imperative to keep the increased prevalence of STDs among MSM in mind, one shouldn't seek to paint STDs as "a gay problem" or what have you, because doing so often comes at the expense of applying these lessons to heterosexuals. For instance, from 2008 to 2010, "the infection rate among some high-risk/low-income heterosexual women nearly doubled from 2008 to 2010." We must also not neglect other seeming risk factors, such as race:

• Although Blacks represent only 12 percent or the U.S. population, they accounted for 44 percent of all new HIV infections in 2009 and are 44 percent of all people living with HIV. [Note: I don't know why they use the awkward term "Blacks" here," but I'm just quoting what I read.]

• The rate of new AIDS diagnoses per 100,000 among Black adults was about 10 times that of Whites in 2010. The rate for Black men (75.6) was the highest of any group, followed by African-American women (33.7). The rate among White men was only 9.1."

Secondly, a gay person who for whatever reason remains abstinent is, of course, not nearly as likely to contract an STI. An abstinence-only approach is absolutely the wrong way to go about sex education, but that doesn't change the fact that abstinence is the surest way to not get an STI. This doesn't apply to sexually active people, of course, but one can be gay without having sex.

[–]ibsulon 5 points6 points ago

  • Difficulty reproducing

I have no difficulty reproducing if I choose to do so. Some ways are technologically assisted, others are more... old fashioned. On the other hand, there is very little chance for an oops.

  • Increased risk of contracting STDs

Only if you choose to be dumb about it. I've had one STD in my life, and it was cured with a single dose of antibiotics.

The discrimination and the "constant reminding" are really one point, and that just means it's our job to make it better.

Yes, it's harder, but the advantages of wealth largely offset that. Being an athlete would present extra troubles, I admit, but you're overstating the problems.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] -3 points-2 points ago

Yes, it's harder, but the advantages of wealth largely offset that.

Not everyone is a rich white kid, you know.

I'm glad that you aren't impacted much by these things. Neither am I. Others are. It's not for either of us to be the judge of that.

[–]Silver_kitty 19 points20 points ago

I believe he was referring to the wealth that you would accumulate being a famous athlete, not him personally, given that he goes on to explain that being a gay athlete specifically might have its own challenges.

[–]tarabluh 11 points12 points ago

Yes, but if the option is being a homosexual professional athlete then you're probably rich.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] -1 points0 points ago

You're also probably in the closet. Whether the wealth makes up for the distress of being in the closet, I don't know, because that's probably individual — incidentally, that's exactly why the question is interesting. :)

[–]scoooot -3 points-2 points ago

Explain how all that outweighs the advantages of being a famous professional athlete.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] 10 points11 points ago

You claim that "That question is clearly homophobic." I'm making the case that you are, in fact, jumping the gun, because it's perfectly reasonable to make the assumption that lives of gay people, including those who are professional athletes, are generally more difficult than they would have been, had they been straight.

EDIT: Okay, you ninja-edited. Your comment before was asking me to explain what the connection was. The advantages of being famous and a professional athlete may not outweigh the disadvantages of being gay for you, so your answer to the original question is clear. I fail to see how that makes the question itself homophobic. It's a question, not an assertion. That said, I don't think that professional athletes have a much more splendid time in a closet than the rest of us do, which is unfortunately still the status quo for professional gay athletes in the US.

[–]stopstigma -5 points-4 points ago

Let's not assume that's what they were talking about.

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] 0 points1 point ago

Huh. Why not, actually? Those are some pretty damn good reasons to not want to be gay, in my opinion. Why would you assume otherwise?

[–]stopstigma -1 points0 points ago

They are good reasons, but what i was saying was lets not assume that they were saying its bad to be gay because of those reasons but more they just think its inherently bad to be gay. I can just picture a bunch of teenage boys going "ew i dont want to suck dick" instead of thinking "oh i wouldnt want to be discriminated against." I don't think the company was thinking of those reasons, but more "no one would want to be gay."

[–]simonaskawkwardly european since 1986[!] 0 points1 point ago

Yes, you can picture that, but I see no reason to assume the worst intentions. There's no logical basis for that, so it would be irrational bordering on paranoid.

You can't go through life assuming that everybody is out to get you. Most people on this planet have no clue what the heck they are doing. So let's back off and save the ammo for the people who are actually trying to hurt us.

[–]stopstigma -2 points-1 points ago

Why wouldnt we? its not like im assuming the worst possible scenario. To me it is clearly homophobic. People don't think things further , im sure it was meant in a "you wouldnt want to be gay" way.

We will agree to disagree.

[–]aidrocsid 2 points3 points ago

You shouldn't let anyone bully you into anything, but you should honestly assess whether or not the expectations you have of people are remotely reasonable. Personally, I think the question was pretty fucked up, but knee-jerking to offense isn't a good rule of thumb.

[–]scoooot 2 points3 points ago

knee-jerking to offense isn't a good rule of thumb.

Agreed.

I believe the question contains bias, and that the bias is anti-gay, and therefore it is a homophobic question. That is not a knee-jerk reaction, and it has nothing to do with being offended.

[–]aidrocsid 2 points3 points ago

Me too.

[–]BeABetterHumanBeing 1 point2 points ago

Homophobic: possibly (if the question had been reversed, I think I'd balk at the idea of being heterosexual too, which would make it more alternative-sexual-orientation-phobic). However homophobic isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

As far as I can tell, the question is aimed towards young, heterosexual men you like sports. Assuming they like being heterosexual, the question does pose a real dilemma to them, and it asks them to consider two factors that they perhaps had never considered together before.

This opportunity for introspective thought, coupled with recent revelations that gay professional sports players exist, and are not as uncommon as sports fans thought, make this question excellent (in my opinion) for certain audiences.

[–]random_person_a 0 points1 point ago

If you look at some of the other comments, the point about "Assuming they like being heterosexual, the question does pose a real dilemma to them..." is really insightful. Many commenters here are having a dilemma because they neither want to be straight nor want to be an athlete. You could be opposed to being another orientation not due to thinking there's something wrong with that orientation, but because you happen to really dig your own.

[–]ePaF 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for giving the questioner the benefit of the doubt, but a sexist would not do so, which may have been intended. Even the possibility or implication that other orientations are grotesque is sexist.

[–]irson 21 points22 points ago

Seems like a fair question to me. Many sports are full of bigotry and if you are a top wealthy athlete it is also expected that you have a hot young gf/wife. Being forced into the closet or having people shout hateful comments at you day in day out.

Now not all sports are like this but most sports in most countries are.

[–]ruderabbit 5 points6 points ago

This. While it's worded poorly, it's not necessarily offensive.

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 105 points106 points ago

Can I go with "neither"? I don't really want to be straight or a professional athlete. Seriously. =/

[–]epsilonbobquestioningly 20 points21 points ago

Why wouldn't you want to be an athlete? Many multiple millions in contract bonuses and endorsement deals for playing a sport that you'd obviously be extremely good at and probably enjoy as a result.

I'd be all over that deal

[–]error1954bi-furious! 11 points12 points ago

I guess it depends on the sport. For example I would take no part in football. I mean like, fuck yeah concussions and getting hit by 200lb guys multiple times a day </sarcasm>. Maybe if it were soccer or something with less contact would I choose that.

[–]haunthaunthaunt 2 points3 points ago

Soccer? Less contact? digs up one of the many videos of men getting legs broken/cleats ripping up their faces/etc...

[–]error1954bi-furious! 0 points1 point ago

True. But it is not football. I guess I just hate football.

[–]AlZahra 9 points10 points ago

As a non-American this conversation was confusing as fuck.

[–]error1954bi-furious! 2 points3 points ago

Maybe I should start calling Soccer European Football then.

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 2 points3 points ago

Lots of pressure, and I wouldn't really want to be famous or whatever. Also, I don't really enjoy athletics - although as someone pointed out poker above, I guess if that's a sport, I could always go with, like, Starcraft or something.

[–]walruz 2 points3 points ago

Well, on the other hand, you wouldn't be able to become a professional athlete if you didn't love kicking a ball around to the extent that you'd do it all the time and hence become extremely good at it. The question more or less requires the assumption that your personality and your preferences are rewritten, to a degree (unless you are a straight average joe or a gay pro athlete, of course).

The same personality change requirement holds for the sexual preference part of the question, as well. You can't be straight without liking the opposite sex, and you can't be gay without liking the same sex.

So the only thing, I think, you can consider before answering this question is: does the pro of having a larger dating pool and being able to get married and have children in every country on Earth outweigh the pro of having shit-tons of money and a job you love? Another factor which might be worth considering, depending on how complete a reality rewrite the question entails, is if you are in a relationship you value. Would your partner be rewritten to suit your new orientation (and if you're straight and go for the athlete, your new interests, personality and financial status)?

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 1 point2 points ago

Hm, fair.

[–]therealsylvos 1 point2 points ago

Is chess considered a sport?

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 0 points1 point ago

Sometimes!

[–]SplurgyA 18 points19 points ago

Duh, go for the professional athlete option; wake up tomorrow with banging professional athlete body and then quit job as an athlete straight away.

[–]Mellytonin 7 points8 points ago

But then you miss out on locker room sideglances and playful teammate bottom-slapping!

[–]SplurgyA 7 points8 points ago

Apparently Grindr crashed yesterday because of all the Olympic athletes trying to log on in London at the same time, even though there are only 14 openly gay or lesbians competing in the London 2012 Olympic games. Hmm...

[–]Mellytonin 5 points6 points ago

I choose to believe there are dozens of muscled Olympians engaged in a greased up nude orgy. It's what the original Olympians would have wanted.

[–]kspacey 3 points4 points ago

The very idea that a city full of horny gay men could be outcompeted by a rather small cadre of (still very horny) athletes is simply not plausible.

A whole city of horny gay men logging onto grindr to see if any olympic athletes are on there, now that might be your issue.

[–]Mellytonin 1 point2 points ago

Stop shattering my international gay orgy dreams!

[–]notmynothername 0 points1 point ago

No legit sources there.

[–]tumbleweedss 32 points33 points ago

That was my thought, "but I don't want to quit liking girls but I also really don't want to be an athlete"

[–]redearth 7 points8 points ago

Well, the nice thing about being a famous pro athlete is that even if you didn't like it, it would give you huge options in terms of life choices.

For example, you'd make as much in a year as many people make in their whole careers. So if you didn't like it, you could stick it out for a year or two, quit, disappear from the public eye, and then go do whatever else you wanted.

I'd do nearly any crappy job for a couple years if it meant I'd be financially free for life.

[–]kirstead 0 points1 point ago

What's wrong with being straight?

[–]Jess_than_three\o/ 10 points11 points ago

Well, it'd put an awfully big damper on my relationship with my girlfriend, for starters.

There's certainly nothing wrong with it in the slightest, but it isn't who I am. Mostly, I like who I am.

[–]yourdadsbff 10 points11 points ago

Well, that depends: in the first scenario, am I already out of the closet? Like, am I a famous professional athlete who happens to be gay, and is well-regarded and respected despite (or perhaps even because of) that? Or is it that nobody knows I'm gay except me? Because even for all the money and/or endorsement deals in the world, I wouldn't want to go back in the closet, and depending on which sport we're talking about, being a famous professional athlete would require me to do just that.

[–]switchbadger 5 points6 points ago

I'd choose straight average person.

Reason? I hate the idea of fame.

Don't really mind what my orientation is.

(bg info: cismale gay guy.)

[–]t00n13 6 points7 points ago

cis bi male, I'm not seeing how this question is homophobic? It leaves a lot to the imagination, and what I fear is that some commenters are filling in the blanks with homophobia.

What it's really asking is "What are your views on hetero-normative privilege?" Do you see it as comparable to the difference between a famous athlete and an average joe? Would losing or gaining that privilege counterbalance wealth and fame for you?

But there are a lot of crosswinds here, such as "I don't like sports" or "fame scares me" or "I'm rather attached to whatever orientation I presently have". ;3

[–]aidrocsid 4 points5 points ago

The way questions like this are framed tend to deal with two situations that have negative trade-offs. That being gay is the negative tradeoff in this situation is kind of insulting.

[–]Notsomebeans 0 points1 point ago

Yeah. most of the questions are like

would you rather NEVER EAT ANYTHING DELICIOUS EVER AGAIN or NO SEX EVER.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

So being gay makes up for being an athlete and being a normal dude makes up for being straight? :3

[–]aidrocsid 1 point2 points ago

Hahaha, I like that.

[–]Xolani 11 points12 points ago

I'd rather just be me.

Thanks.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Disposable_Corpus 1 point2 points ago

To be either option presented in this scenario, though, I'd have to stop being me in a massive way, which renders the whole point moot.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

Or does it?

[–]Xolani 0 points1 point ago

Most people can very easily imagine themselves being an ordinary heterosexual, though.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

As a cis-gendered bisexual, it's surprisingly easy.

[–]scrash 23 points24 points ago

being homosexual definitely has downsides. i'm not self-hating or anything but i'd still rather be straight than gay, also considering how gay people are treated in society today.

[–]ocinle 20 points21 points ago

HOW DARE YOU HAVE EXPERIENCES.

...but seriously, I hope things get better for you.

[–]Dirkef88 -1 points0 points ago

Living in a liberal Canadian city, I'm now 24 and have never been personally attacked or discriminated based on my sexuality. Never.

Although, I did go through all of high school in the closet, so was spared the wrath of insecure teenagers. But when I did come out, it was a non-issue for even my most masculine bros.

Not that I haven't heard of homophobic instances where I live, just saying that how people are treated is largely based on where you live. Move to the Canadian Weast coast!

[–]scrash 8 points9 points ago

Ok, so in order to be gay and happy, I have to move to specific city? What if I visit friends who live somewhere else or go on vacation? Heck, even the internet would be a constant reminder of how inferior I should feel.

And like I said, I don't hate myself for being gay. I've been out for 3 years and my family and friends are completely supportive.

[–]runpmcLoves whiskey, rock & roll, and dick. 2 points3 points ago

Fuuuuuck. That's a hell of a quandary—I hate sports.

[–]DemonicHeart 21 points22 points ago

If someone offered me a pill to become heterosexual I'd fucking take it in a heartbeat.

[–]adamdavid85 28 points29 points ago

I'd throw it away in a heartbeat. =/

[–]TwistTurtle 17 points18 points ago

And give up the luxury of NEVER having a pregnancy scare? As someone who has experienced fairly severe homophobia AND pregnancy scares, I'm telling you, I found the scares infinitely more stressful.

[–]andrewjd 8 points9 points ago

I'm not really sure how pregnancy scares match up to HIV scares. I know you could still have an HIV scare as a heterosexual, but it much more commonly affects MSM.

[–]sheepman21 5 points6 points ago

If you have a stable healthy partner there is no HIV scare. Among the heterosexuals there is always pregnancy scare.

[–]andrewjd 2 points3 points ago

True, but also most women most of the time are on the oral contraceptive pill. For the next few years, there is no pill designed to reduce your chance of HIV infection. I don't think it's pleasant being on either side of this.

[–]briancavner 2 points3 points ago

For the next few years, there is no pill designed to reduce your chance of HIV infection.

Actually, as of 6 days ago, there is.

[–]andrewjd 1 point2 points ago

I actually had this drug in my mind as I typed the comment out, and decided the qualifier of a few years was the realistic time for Truvada drug to diffuse out as a prophylactic drug. I'm still dubious as to what extent this will be available to regular patients in most countries, under government or insurance schemes. We shall see.

[–]DemonicHeart 2 points3 points ago

If I was in such a situation on a long-term basis, I'd probably get a vasectomy.

[–]TwistTurtle 1 point2 points ago

An extreme response, but spoken with conviction. I like it.

[–]stopthefate 3 points4 points ago

I would be crying tears of happiness for days if that existed and I could at least afford it by selling half my shit.

[–]nightzirk 3 points4 points ago

I would sell it on the black market.

[–]ikonoclasm 6 points7 points ago

Wow, really? I'd laugh at whoever thought I might be interested in such a pill. I've never once felt like my life would be significantly easier or better if I was straight. Life is hard being straight, too. The pressures and burdens are subtler, but they still exist and they're still awful.

[–]Thermodynamo 2 points3 points ago

I agree...as a woman, I am thankful every day that I'm not straight. The shit straight women put up with from straight men on the regular...it actually boggles my mind. I don't know how they do it. There are truly wonderful straight men out there, don't get me wrong (I am with one, thus the bisexual flair), but in order to find them these poor women have no choice but to sift through the huge amounts of dudes that just don't have any sort of adequate respect for women. Some women are even so used to this that they can be insulted by men right to their faces ("women are so crazy", etc) and they don't even see the problem with it, which is (IMHO) why so many women, even in this day and age, still end up marrying dudes who expect them to cook/do laundry/raise the kids/clean the house (probably complete with "mancave") while also having a full time job. Ugh. I'll stick with being queer, thanks.

[–]aidrocsid 7 points8 points ago

That's kind of a one-sided assessment, isn't it? The pursuit of heterosexual relationships isn't all fun and games for men either. Especially not when it's so popular to bash men as brainless, emotionless bullies.

[–]Thermodynamo 0 points1 point ago

Oh, definitely agree. It's hard out there for everyone, and men have to put up with their own troubles based on what's expected of them as men. But there's just so many examples of casual disrespect shown to women from men, and there's just not nearly as many examples of that in the reverse. Rape statistics are one extreme example, but even if you aren't thinking to that extreme, the reality is all around us.

For instance...when a woman walks down a city street, it's not even that surprising if someone catcalls her. It's bound to happen sometimes, women know this. That doesn't make it okay, but there it is. Whereas--how many times have you seen women catcalling men on the street? I'm not saying it never happens, but I honestly can't even think of a time I've seen that happen. I used to work at a UPS facility, and there were numerous guys who tried to get a hug from me every single time I walked past them, and these were total strangers--simply because I am a woman, not just one or two but several guys independently decided upon seeing me that my femaleness made it acceptable for them to expect me to stop what i'm doing at work to give a complete stranger a creepy hug. One guy was so persistent that I finally gave in to get him off my back, and I was rewarded with a disgusting, wet sloppy kiss on the neck from that old man. At work. I can't describe to you how disgusting that was, and how little I wanted to be involved in any of it. What's worse is the next time he wanted a hug, I straight-up told him I didn't have to hug him, and he actually got mad at me, and refused to talk to me for months...as if that were some sort of punishment!! It was a relief, obviously. Anyway, he might have been by far the grossest of those guys who wanted hugs, but the sentiment is the same for all of them...because I'm female, these guys feel entitled to act like I owe them something. My tits on their chest, I guess. YUCK.

Or when women go to a bar, or a dance club, and dudes dance right up on them, and put their junk up on women's butts without even asking--hell, without even making eye contact first to see if that's okay...there's a real difference there in terms of how men treat women vs. how women treat men. I am glad I'm queer because when I'm in a lesbian bar, I feel safe and respected, but when I'm in a straight bar...not so much. Women get approached by men like these a lot, and have to slog through them to find people who will respect them as equals. In fact, even some genuinely nice guys I know don't really respect women as equals. It's tough, which is what I was getting at in my above post.

Life and romance is hard for everyone, men included, and nobody's saying that women are perfect by any means...but there are just so many straight men who make habits of disrespecting women, to women's faces or behind their backs...and I can say that the women I've known in my life just don't do that to men to the same degree at all. It makes it harder for the straight girls to find the decent straight guys, that's all. I happened across one, myself, and ended up falling in love, but I've always felt lucky to have had other options while dating. I feel like it makes it much easier for me to have freedom in how I express myself, since I am under less pressure to live up to some male fantasy of what women should be like in order to be attractive.

It just seems like a lot to have to put up with, from my perspective.

[–]Cptn_Sisko 4 points5 points ago

I agree...as a man, I am thankful every day that I'm not straight. The shit straight men put up with from straight women on the regular...it actually boggles my mind. I don't know how they do it. There are truly wonderful straight women out there, don't get me wrong (I am with one, thus the bisexual flair), but in order to find them these poor men have no choice but to sift through the huge amounts of chicks that just don't have any sort of adequate respect for men. Some men are even so used to this that they can be insulted by women right to their faces ("men are such assholes", etc) and they don't even see the problem with it, which is (IMHO) why so many men, even in this day and age, still end up marrying chicks who expect them to keep the car up to date, take out the trash, not be able to watch football/porn, do all house repairs (probably complete with "walk-in closet") while also having a full time job. Ugh. I'll stick with being queer, thanks.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

I agree. As an aromantic, I am thankful every day that I don't experience romantic emotion. The shit romantic people of every gender and sexuality put up with from themselves on the regular...it actually boggles my mind. I don't know how they do it. There are truly wonderful romantic people out there, don't get me wrong (I'm with one, which doesn't actually require me to change my flair), but in order to find them these poor people have no choice but to suffer through the huge amounts of stray feelings and emotional urges that just don't have any sort of adequate basis. Some people are even so used to this that they throw themselves into new relationships on a whim or a surge of hormones ("s/he's truely the one", etc.) and they don't even see the problem with it, which is (IMHO) why so many people, even in this day and age, still end up marrying people who expect the honeymoon to last forever, constantly expect "romantic" things, need to be thought about all the time, minimize and ignore their flaws (probably complete with "does this dress make me look fat") while also having a full-time life. Ugh. I'll stick with being aromantic, thanks.

[–]Thermodynamo 0 points1 point ago

Privileged much?

[–]Cptn_Sisko 0 points1 point ago

Just showing how ridiculous and offensive your statement was.

[–]Thermodynamo 0 points1 point ago

Of course. How ever do you manage in this cruel, cruel world that is so unfair to men?

[–]Cptn_Sisko 0 points1 point ago

but in order to find them these poor women have no choice but to sift through the huge amounts of dudes that just don't have any sort of adequate respect for women.

You saying that is akin to me saying "Most women are money grubbing and will leave you as soon as it gets dry." Or something of that nature, when in fact we both know both statements are false.

Most people in this world are nice people. Its the very vocal minority of bad that gives humanity a bad rap.

Also, don't even start talking about privilege. You may be a female bisexual, but I am a male bisexual (which is way harder of the bisexuals) and black. If we are going to play the oppression olympics, you are going to have to do better than that.

[–]Thermodynamo 0 points1 point ago

Most people in this world are nice people. Its the very vocal minority of bad that gives humanity a bad rap.

Even people who are assholes towards women probably have other parts of their lives where they are nice people. But that doesn't change the fact that this "minority" is still big enough to create a consistent problem for women, and that's not something that should be glossed over.

I also said that I know genuinely nice guys who don't really respect women as equals. People are multifaceted, and very nice guys can be very disrespectful to and about women on the regular without even really realizing that's what they're doing. Actually, WOMEN even do this pretty regularly, another thing that is common in straight culture, which is just one more reason I am glad to have not been exclusively exposed to that culture in my life. That's because gender biases are a cultural problem; people are raised with a certain worldview and there's an element of straight-guy culture that encourages treating women and talking about women as though they are objects/worth less than men.

I really don't give a shit about oppression Olympics. Life is hard for everyone in different ways. I never said there's not shit that you go through that I will never have to worry about--any time you talk to anyone, one can safely assume that this is the case. I have my own privileges. THAT SAID. I can tell you that women have to deal with direct disrespect from men very frequently, and it would be foolish to suggest that men deal with the same, or even anywhere near the same level of casual disrespect from women that women do from men. Not all men, but the types of guys who dance up on women in clubs without even making eye contact first, who don't listen when a women asks them to back off, who talk to each other about women as if they are sexual objects for the taking, who talk to women they don't even know as if these women owe them something just for being female. I never said anything about the unique struggles you've been through but from what I've seen and experienced in my own life, I simply feel that there is a larger percentage of disrepectful men than I would want to have to deal with and I have always been grateful that men were not my only option, and that I have not had to subscribe to some of the less appealing parts of straightie culture. As I've said in another comment in this thread, it has given me so much more freedom in how I express myself since I'm under less pressure to live up to some male fantasy of how women should be, and has lessened the necessity of having to deal with the ways certain men think women should be talked to/treated.

[–]Cptn_Sisko 0 points1 point ago

I agree with most you said, but do you not see why it would be offensive to say "most guys are jerks" (paraphrased) just in the same way its offensive when people say "most women are crazy/bitches?"

Its the same thing. If you don't then we'll agree to disagree.

[–]DemonicHeart 0 points1 point ago

Oh, the pressures and burdens for being heterosexual aren't subtle at all, and yes they would be frustrating to deal with. But for me, that's less terrifying than the thought of never being heterosexual.

[–]yourdadsbff 2 points3 points ago

D:

[–]spacetime_sundae 3 points4 points ago

There are always those Pray Away the Gay programs...

[–]DemonicHeart 6 points7 points ago

Those don't work, though - my statement was assuming that the pill in question has been PROVEN to work.

[–]Mythros 8 points9 points ago

whoosh.

[–]DemonicHeart 1 point2 points ago

See, that's what I hate about those 'ex-gay' camps - they're giving people false hope. I hate when people do that.

[–]spacetime_sundae 1 point2 points ago

I was only joking :)

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 1 point2 points ago

Oh, we know. Well, most of us. Luckily, the couple of downvoters don't know where the "revoke ally privileges" button is - if you were serious, we totally would have taken your awesome flair away.

Which would be a shame, as the ally flair is so much cooler then the others.

[–]spacetime_sundae 0 points1 point ago

Yes, the ally flair is badassery.

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 1 point2 points ago

But wait, someday we aromantics will have the greatest flair ever!

Maybe like this! ...which is the only aromantic flag I've seen proposed thus far; not a wide selection.

[–]spacetime_sundae 0 points1 point ago

"Aromantic" eh? What's the difference between that and Asexual? Also, do you know what does the flag means?

[–]WorkingMouseEqual Opportunity 0 points1 point ago

Well, think of it like this: an asexual is a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction; they simply have no sexual desire - as contrasted by heterosexual, homosexuals, bi/pansexuals, and so forth, who have sexual attraction (the titles specify preference, of course).

In a similar manner, aromantics are people who do not experience romantic love. We can feel attachment, we care, and we have platonic love, but that whole head-over-heels "falling in love" stuff just isn't in our repertoire. And yes, we hear "oh, you just have to meet the right someone" all the time. Just to clarify in advance: sexuality is separate; I, for example, am a bisexual; despite lacking romantic feelings, I still feel sexual attraction. There are also aromantic asexuals, which is exactly what you expect.

If that's hard for you to understand, think of it as the difference between newlyweds and a married couple - the newlyweds are infatuated with each other; hearts-a-flutter, can't imagine a flaw, think about them all the time, need to be near, that sort of thing - that's romantic love. An older married couple, having been together for a while, has a more platonic love; they care about each other, want to aid and protect each other, are happy when they think about each other, but no longer have that need to spend every waking moment joined at the hip. Mind you, they may rekindle romantic feelngs every so often, and there may be sparks flying on occasion, but overall they are in love without the "falling". We aromatics can do the latter sort of love, and in many cases surprisingly easily, but not the former.

As an aside, we may still like the ritual of romance; being surprised with a box of chocolates is nice and I appreciate a candlelit dinner for example - we just don't feel the romantic emotions that people typically associate with it, or use it to achieve. And indeed, many of us are still interested in relationships.

Here's a Wikipedia article discussing it - as expected, the term originated in the asexual community. There are various other terms that are applicable, and which broaden the sexual and affectionate spectrum. For example, a friend of mine is sexually and romantically attracted to ladies, but is romantically interested in me, a male - he could be described as a very slight bisexual (maybe a one or two on the Kinsey scale), or more easily as a biromantic heterosexual - especially as he has little sexual interest in me to speak of.

Now, as to the flag!

According to the page I shamelessly ripped it from, the author's intent was to use a spade as a symbol of sexuality as separate from romance (as opposed to the heart), the green to represent aromantics, the gray line to represent gray romantics - a term for the various kinds of in-between romantic and aromantic - and the red for romantic allies. The yellow background is apparently merely to represent platonic or non-romantic love in general.

As a fan of Homestuck, I would have used the diamond instead of the spade, but I suppose it works.

[–]stopstigma 0 points1 point ago

I think you will change your mind eventually. I used to think that until I have a ton of gay friends, have been out for a while and essentially just enjoy being with women.

[–]Angry_Grammarian 3 points4 points ago

Hmm. That's a tough one. On the one hand, it would be nice to be rich. On the other hand, I hate sports. Being gay would be OK, but I like having children and raising them with their mother. Meh. Flip a coin.

[–]omniamutantir 2 points3 points ago

I'm sorry to see so many people willing to change their sexuality because we all face systemic discrimination. I mean . . . it sucks, it really does, but, being queer made me who I am. And I like who I am today. I like who I've become and how I got here was a big part of that process.

[–]sevendeadlypigs 2 points3 points ago

well to be fair fame isn't for everyone...

[–]molokai 2 points3 points ago

I see what they did there.

Instructions:

  1. Press the ([]) button on the bottom of your iPhone
  2. Touch and hold the You Rather icon until it shakes
  3. Press the red (X) on top of the You Rather icon
  4. Press 'Yes'
  5. Free puppies

[–]amanitus 2 points3 points ago

This seems like a fairly reasonable question. On one hand, you'd be a nobody who is accepted by society. On the other hand, you'd be a celebrity who is gay in a fairly homophobic career. Both have their ups and downs. It's up to you to choose which you'd rather have.

[–]cuttothechasse 1 point2 points ago

That's kind of a hard decision. I don't really want to be famous, but no way do I want to be heterosexual, haha!

[–]JTHipster 1 point2 points ago

Heterosexual average person, because then I'd secrety be superman.

[–]essbjorn 1 point2 points ago

I would rather be straight and a normal person. But that's because I don't want to be famous. If it would've been a choice between being a normal homosexual guy or a normal straight flipping a coin would be my way to go.

[–]scoooot 9 points10 points ago

Obviously homophobic question is obviously homophobic.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]scoooot -2 points-1 points ago

It would be negligent to ignore the fact that one of the reasons why many people would rather be the straight nobody, would be if the respondent was homophobic.

being gay could potentially be a sacrifice.

which outweighs the advantages of being a famous professional athlete?

[–]FuckingDIY 7 points8 points ago

In some sports...hell yeah.

How many professional football players are in the closet? Being a famous rich athlete is probably an amazing experience, but the fact that you are hiding a huge part of your life could make anyone miserable.

[–]scoooot -2 points-1 points ago

Do you wish you were straight?

[–]FuckingDIY 5 points6 points ago

I used to, but I don't anymore. I feel like it has made me into a better person because I had to work through it. Even with all of that, I've had it pretty easy.

Going back in the closet isn't really something that interests me. Also, I wouldn't want to worry about my teammates' reactions, or feel like I might lose sponsors and fans if I came out. I understand why people do it though. Their passion for the sport is enough to make them join...not unlike gay people in the military.

[–]scoooot -5 points-4 points ago

You don't see how the question assumes that you should wish you were straight?

[–]FuckingDIY 3 points4 points ago

It could be doing that. It could also be pointing out the stigma that gay athletes face in our society.

The fact that people still have to stop and think before they answer this question shows that we have a long road in front of us...even if we've made a lot of progress.

[–]scoooot -3 points-2 points ago

Think about how stigma works. What's the difference between pointing it out, and feeding it?

[–]FuckingDIY 5 points6 points ago

Pointing at a problem doesn't mean you are contributing to the problem. The difference is their intention.

The question doesn't assume anything. It's offering you a choice between being a gay professional athlete and being a straight nobody. Some people would (and do) choose the harder path and live in the closet. Other people would choose the easy route and be straight.

For all we know the person that created this wants straight people to stop and think about the life of a gay athlete. (That's not something most straight guys think about when they are watching sports.) I honestly don't see any homophobia in this question and I think you're making assumptions.

[–]Arx0s 0 points1 point ago

What kind of pro athlete? If NFL or NBA, then yes. Professional curler... not so much.

[–]FourteenThousand 0 points1 point ago

I would take being a pro marathoner. Any. Day. Run twice as fast as I currently run for twice as far? Hell yeah, sign me up. Throw in a few of those ultra-marathons too while you're at it.

[–]AspelKneesocks 0 points1 point ago

Average.

Average people don't get run off the road by paparazzi, and they can go to Wendy's all they want without getting bothered.

[–]leBMD 0 points1 point ago

The second one, all the way, for two reasons:

  1. I don't want to ever be famous in the way athletes are. I'd much prefer quiet fame among choir people and/or current and past students than having the paparazzi on my case.

  2. the sweet, sweet privilege of being normal, boring and straight (in standard senses of the term).

Strangely enough, though, as much as I see the privilege of being normal and straight, at the same time being asexual has had its advantages. Like being able to hang out with my friends who are girls and not have people pestering me about which one I should or should not be going out with/having sex with.

[–]midnamemarie 0 points1 point ago

What app is this?

[–]dezine[S] 1 point2 points ago

It's called "you rather." Just asks random this or that questions. Very dumb questions though, removed it pretty quickly.

[–]midnamemarie 0 points1 point ago

thanks!!

[–]Willyjwade -2 points-1 points ago

As the ambassador from /r/all maybe they are seeing how many homophones they have on the site without alerting them to the test.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 2755 on app-80 running fc22e53.