Should we limit this forum to Lesbians?

I have a lesbian daughter and I would like to be able to post here when I feel like it. But even if I didn't , I still will / would post in a respectful manner. I know that some would not, but those disrespectful posts could be reported and taken down.

 

I would like the opportunity to respond to posts if I have something of value to add to the threads. And, whilst I am a guy , I like and respect all sorts of women.
It's possible too that, were my interest piqued, I might ask some of my lesbian/gay friends and post their opinions.
(They're unlikely to be on here already and I like being anonymous so I shan't be mentioning to them).

That said, were the forum to become open only to lesbians/females/curious etc, it should be remembered that when something is prohibited, it can become more appealing.
Whether that's music/drink or whatever, some guys may sign up as if they are female purely to see what's in that 'hidden' forum.

Perhaps best to leave it open but then, heavily, to moderate the posts.
I suspect that labelling threads as 'lesbians only' could be prejudicial to/of (?) some people and would likely have as much effect as if telling guys to stop masturbating. lol

my 2c

 

I do not think we should limit the forum to lesbians only. The lesbian meet-up that my wife and I attend also includes a few bi women, and they certainly have much to offer with their experiences from having deviated from being straight, and away from expected values and learned normality. Further, where I work there are six women; four lesbians, one straight woman, and, one bi woman. The four of us that are lesbians are just as comfortable around the other two as we are around each other.

 

Exactly. Women mainly post online because they feel uncertain and want to see how others react to their situation. To be balanced, this should include both genders and not exclude men in a same sex relationship.

Unless the OP question was specifically about whether men found lesbian behaviour sexually attractive, (a very unlikely scenario), anyone posting comments like that, should be removed from more than just the thread.

I have replied to several people worried about the site rules. "Treat everyone online, the same way as you would if you were speaking to them face to face, and you won't go far wrong".

 

Just mentioning this for clarity. US and English can be confusing due to their similarity.

Yes, I wrote that quoted phrase so, for clarity, I did not say 'while'. Were I to have said 'while', I may as well as have said, 'for as long as I am a guy' - ie a temporary situation through a period of time.
However, I said 'whilst', which could also be written as, 'despite my being a bloke' or 'regardless that I am a guy' - ie a permanent situation.

I'll always consider myself male and I have absolutely no issues with others who choose to be fluid or to switch from their perceived selves to that which they consider/know, to be their true being.
I've got much more of an issue with those who allow themselves to be triggered by the actions or desires of others where those actions or desires have nothing to do with them.

I'm sure those who fuss about others' gender identity for example wouldn't like it if they were similarly and equally negatively judged.
They really should get out more and see the real world.
Oh, yeh, and before they decide they are the one's in the 'right' (by which I mean correct), they should read up on their subject matter because, when they do, they'll slowly begin to realise that the terms 'right' and 'wrong' shouldn't be taken literally, to the exclusion of that huge grey area in between right and wrong.

It's not an absolute concept.
Right and wrong has it's place but that grey area is where most things fit into and we use our own judgment to work through those situations.
To adopt or maintain a 100%er position is ridiculous and it's demonstrative of intellect of those so ill-informed.

It makes me question where that notion of 'right' and 'wrong' came from.
Why is it taken to be so literal by some.
Perhaps it's worth also mentioning that there's another expression about not judging someone, lest you be judged.

 

I still laugh about the time, when a guy opened a seminar with.

Ladies and Gentlemen........And those of you who cannot quite make up your minds.

 

I think that you should add a 5th option

Only add a comment regardless of you gender or orientation, if you can offer genuine and constructive advice, as a result of having lesbians among your family or friends.

 

I have always encouraged my wife to explore a female option, which she had done only once, to my knowlege. I didn't ask to be there gawking at them, but thought she should explore different aspects of sexuality. We had both agreed to try it with a same sex partner. She did it and enjoyed the experinece, as I did a similar experience years later when I grew past my stupidity. More power to the brave women who know and enjoy.

 

I am glad that you liked my suggestion, would you consider making it a site rule for posting on lesbian threads.
Then all you have to do is work out how to stop suggestions that they should take their shoes off.

 

Is there a pansexual forum here? I didn't see one. I don't identify as a lesbian, but, I am pan and have had relationships with other women. I totally get limiting access to only lesbians, but non lesbian queer women (bi,.pan, omni,.etc), are valid too. Other than bi women, the rest of us don't really have a place to discuss WLW related issues.

 

Not sure I like the label queer. It seems derogatory to some degree. But to your key point, yup, I understand and agree.

I wonder should it be labelled 'women who like women' forum.
That should permit all women if they are lesbian or pan-sexual and exclude guys - erm, including me.
That's OK.
If I have something to write/say/suggest, I could send it to @KathyL or other moderator and she can decide if it's worth posting to the actual forum.

By the way; I understand pan-sexual but what is omni-sexual, please? I mean, why the distinction when, largely, they are the same and interchangeable?

 

Women have a right to safe spaces and if lesbians on this site feel the need to have somewhere to "call their own" I support that wholeheartedly.

 

This thread is about how to implement it.
The decision about safe space was made a long time ago, yet, in the ladies only threads, guys continue to post.
This thread is about finding a way to implement it better than it has been, to date.

 

Thinking further about this and sticking strictly to the questions in the poll, these are my additional thoughts.

1. All of them rely on trust - which seems unattainable online.
2. This site is actually trying to do something about this, which regulators are trying to do (in EU at least), in relation to porn sites.
That is, to verify the user accurately.
I doff my hat to the admins here who are doing it voluntarily.

3. It's not easy to do without driving away some users but, on the flip side, those people may be one's you should need rid of.
4. unless actual ID is to be obtained from every user ( that's my anonymity gone and, therefore, my membership would end), I think a better way would be to make the contributor click a button to acknowledge that the thread/forum is for the input of women's perspectives ONLY and guys not sticking to that principle will be locked out of the site for 'x' days for a first offence. Next time it could be longer and third time it could be permanent.

That would enable women to have their safe space and any contribution from a guy would be a message relayed from his female friends who would be gay/lesbian/bi/pan/omni etc. and whom he had canvassed for their views.
It should not be an input from him personally, or he would be barred for a time form the whole site.

 

Interesting. This is a pretty well accepted umbrella term for the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. It is what the Q stands for by the way. It's how Albuquerque got the nickname "Albuqueerque." We have a Queer/Trans Night at the local, well, queer club. I volunteer for an event called Queer Campout every year. Most LGBTQ+ folks I know who aren't strictly gay or lesbian self identify as queer--myself included.

I believe it may be reclaimed language, but these days it's simply short hand for the full acronym LGBTQIAA2S...I don't even know what it is

I'm not even sure I fully understand, but as I've had it explained to me, omnisexual people date people of all genders; pansexual people date people, regardless of gender.

It's essentially the same thing, but I think the real difference is the mindset of the person identifying that way. I guess it's kinda like an omni person would go to a buffet and decide they want to try every dish the buffet offers; a pan person just wants to be full and will eat whatever looks good in the moment.

Idk...not sure I'm successfully explaining this.

 

You might not be lol.

I wonder now what is the difference between 'omni' and 'slut'.
We are omnivorous. Generally, we eat meat and veg and not just one or the other, which isn't the same as eating a whole buffet lol.

I like the 2nd description much more and expect the difference between omnisexual and pansexual is nuanced rather than distinct.

Re. LGBTQIAA2S
I've never heard of those after 'I'. LGBTQI is as far as my learning has got to. It seems clear that LGBT didn't like Q either or they wouldn't have needed to be mentioned distinctly?

 

I think it's most likely generational. There was also a time when it was just LGB. There is even a supposed conservative movement within the gay community called "LGB Without the T" rooted in transphobia. I'm unclear if any similar rejection the Q was based on the term or on a disdain for asexuals, intersex folks, pan and omni folks, demi...anything that wasn't gay but wasn't heteronormative either.

I do recall "queer" as a playground taunt in elementary school, but "gay" was a synonym for lame in high school and no one bristles at the inclusion of G, so I don't know.

Also, this may be helpful: What is the full acronym for LGBTQQIP2SAA? • What's On Queer Magazine

 

Thanks for the link.

"Generational" = I'm an old git? lol
I too recall LGB.
I wasn't bothered about anyone's differences then or now and often wonder why people are so segregated as they are with such terminology.

In my view the whole concept of normality is delusional.
We are all different and some of those differences are shaved off us if we're to comply with "society's" so-called norms and pigeon-holes.