It is still a hard balance to strike between "In Iran they still hang you on a car crane" vs. "My circle of people is accepting and moved along already a few years ago".

This is just another topic that some people – such as myself – are interested in. It's no more in your face than any other interesting-but-somewhat-off-topic posts that come up here.

However, as an LGBT person I do also feel some fatigue in this regard. But in my case, I think the source of that fatigue is mainly my Facebook feed, not HN.

So, the LGBT people you talk to on HN are, in general, likely to be middle-class, and educated, and thus somewhat less likely to be facing the very worst stuff. However, yeah, most LGBT people will face at least some issues in their lives that straights don't have to deal with.

> For some reason though, we have to go over and over this mind numbing stream of preaching and virtue signaling every week

I think you're seeing what you want to see.

> I mean, what do you people want in the end?

To be treated as people, basically.

> Do I have to spend the rest of my life proving that I do not care about you at all?

You can do what you like. You seem to be taking this bizarrely personally.

Thanks for taking your time to answer, even if I can't agree with everything that you said.

> For some reason though, we have to go over and over this mind numbing stream of preaching and virtue signaling every week. You start anew every time and have to prove your loyalty to the grand cause or the ruling party, or whatever it is at this point

You can do whatever you want. As can everyone else.

If anyone doesn't feel that either of those things are true, then I really genuinely recommend some therapy. Therapy is great.

[deleted - brain fail. Comment posted correctly above]

It's very hard to avoid getting bombarded by this. You would have to completely avoid processing any information stream. Taht would still leave you with all the events and initiatives in the office. I don't really see why I should stick a pride flag on my desk and it is frowned upon if I don't. It's not a matter of therapy. I'm perfectly fine, there is a problem with people pushing politics down your throat even if you already accepted it. I cannot even imagine how people that have different opinions handle it.

Yes, I can see how it seems impossible to avoid. And trying avoid The Thing is one approach.

Another other approach is to figure out why you have these feelings in response to The Thing. Once you know why, you can work towards not having these feelings in response to The Thing.

That route is the harder one, and so is often made much easier (/possible) with the help of a therapist.

The easy 'avoid' route takes constant low-level effort and occasional difficult feelings. The hard 'why' route typically takes more up-front effort, but much less long term maintenance.

It's kinda like software: It's ok to suffer technical debit for a bit. But after a while you may just think "f--k it", lets deal with this once and for all and move on.

EDIT: Typos, general brain fail

This seems so strange to me. You could have just skipped over the article. I probably only read 5% of the stuff that shows up on the first page.

I dunno, maybe at some of the people still saying "it's not normal" or "it's a modern trend"?

Retconning 'prison bitch' as 'gay husband' is beyond stupid and crass.

Does this sort of thing really help anyone?

Yup, it's especially funny because the present-day, deeply egalitarian idea of homosexuality (with its attendant developments, including gay marriage) is a very modern (late 19th c. at the earliest) development. Back in, say, Ancient Greece and Rome, "prison bitch" was all you got - both homosexual sex and, to a large extent, heterosexual were essentially predatory in nature. Rape culture was very real. (You can see the consequences of this e.g. in the Christian new testament, where the homosexual practices of the time are said to be an abomination but this also extends to heterosexual practices.)

(OP's article does attempt to reframe the typical practices of the time and make them "fit" the modern egalitarian view, but note how even in their own account it's always the older, more dominant member of the pairing who is said to "love" and "care" for his younger and more submissive partner. This is clearly the same sort of highly skewed arrangement that is well known from ancient Mediterranean cultures.)

If we're questioning the egalitarian quality of pre-20th century relationŝips, one could also say that "heterosexuality" between equals was also not the norm.

Only modern _homosexuality,_ though, is burdened with the requirement to prove that its historical antecedents were somehow more egalitarian than the norm for its time.

> one could also say that "heterosexuality" between equals was also not the norm.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said. Hence also the historical focus on socially sanctioning heterosexual sex via marriage, and on the family's role in carefully vetting prospective marriage partners. It clearly didn't go as far as modern "consent culture" towards solving the issue, but it was a rough attempt.

When you say "towards solving the issue", what issue do you reckon needed (or needs) solving?

Often, these discussions go awry is when we overestimate and build upon solid seeming concepts that are actually squishy.

Marriage and prison bitch have very different connotations to us. To an alien...these are all in the sphere of coupling relationships. Ultimately, a 4th century peasant marriage, 19th century marriage, a 1950s American marriage and a modern, suburban gay marriage are all different from eachother... there's a common thread though.

The semantics tend to become the discussion.

"Consent culture", along with contraception and condoms, strikes me as one of the real enablers of the 20th century sexual revolution.

I guess it helps advertisers get clicks.

There are an absolute shitload of sexists, homophobes, and transphobes out there.

The modern discourse on trans people is as if only pidgeon-talkers were allowed to have newspaper columns.

Literally this morning I had a "women can't be craftsmen" on my timeline: https://twitter.com/XylaFoxlin/status/1281098896081653760

I would guess that, even in the huge world population, there are large time intervals between any two people being murdered for defending that pidgeons cannot understand human speech.

Really, you might be living in a bubble.

I mean, a psychologist? If it bothers you that much, that's probably something you should deal with...

So with any external thing I should basically go to a psychologist? Is it so werid that I'm tired of all the preaching. You cannot evan say that you are tired. Every preacher is autmatically assigned a status of invincibility. Say something to the preacher - you are the offender now.

If general-interest articles about history that you're under no obligation to read make you want to scream, then... yeah, maybe. That's not a normal response.

It reads to me like you've taken rsynnott's point to an extreme here.

> Is it so werid that I'm tired of all the preaching

Humans are all weird in different ways, but that isn't the point here. The point is that your views on this seem to be making you unhappy. And, well, that doesn't have to be the case. Talking to someone can help you not feel unhappy about this stuff. And if indeed it does, it will likely make other parts of your life better too, in ways that may not be obvious now.

Lot's of people here have had therapy. This is not a judgement or a dismissal, rather it is genuine advice.

You seem to be trying to give me an honest advice, which is nice and I appreciate it, but you don't seem to get the point - you do not have to, and should not, feel ok with everything that happens externally. That's not something that needs fixing. I do not need a cope mechanism. There are real things that I'm dissatisfied with and I have the right to feel this way. I can rationalise it and go to some kind of therapy, but that's not the point. I have enough "terapy" sessions in my job, that's precisely what I'm dissatisfied about. It's a bit annoying and redundant most of the year, but after the pride month you just want to never hear about this topic anymore in your life.

Imagine that someone comes to you and says that you should kneel before some random black people, because that's how you are supposed to react to the BLM narrative. You might genuiely care about the minorities and still do not agree with the BLM narrative, or just plainly do not see the point of the performances themselves. You might feel very bad about doing this, which is completely natural. There are a lot of reasons why you would not want to do this. Should you go to a therapy to be able to shame yourself more easily? All due respect, it feels that someone who suggests something like this would need the therapy more.

Please stop.

No.

Ok, fair enough, it sounds like you're genuinely quite content in your feelings on this stuff. You do you.

If you ever change you mind, I think it'll be easier to change yourself than to change the world.

What, are we still talking about reading an article on a website, which you could have easily skipped? Or something else?

Until the day when homophobes/racists/sexists stop acting like pieces of shit.

If doing your part to support these people just includes not saying anything while awareness is raised, I would recommend doing that. It's very easy to do and takes no effort on your part.

What kind of awareness did this story raise ?

Queer people are typically not present in traditional histories. This raises the awareness that queer people existed then too, albeit in different circumstances.

Isn't the consequence of that line of thinking that anything that doesn't raise awareness is problematic, as it takes up attention/spots on the front page etc? Ergo: we should have nothing but LGBT topics so everybody is aware all the time.

This statement:

> If doing your part to support these people just includes not saying anything while awareness is raised, I would recommend doing that.

Does not imply what you asserted, which is:

> Isn't the consequence of that line of thinking that anything that doesn't raise awareness is problematic, as it takes up attention/spots on the front page etc? Ergo: we should have nothing but LGBT topics so everybody is aware all the time.

There seem to be several logical steps in-between the two assertions that you've assumed would happen and didn't lay out here.