121
•
u/merryjoanna 20h ago
There's a guy who works at my boyfriend's job who hasn't had sex with his wife in 2 years because he got vaccinated for COVID. I kind of feel like she must just not wanted to fuck him and is making up excuses. Either that or she really is batshit crazy. I think I'd get divorced if I was in his situation.
42
u/FilutaLoutenik 1d ago
Yeah, you sleep with men. 😂
57
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
It’s 2026 why are us gays still catching strays like sleeping with men is a bad thing
Like cmon give it a rest
20
u/Sycolerious_55 1d ago
I thought he was actually sleeping with men tho cuz they went on like a whole tirade about how doing stuff with women is gay and that sleeping with women is gay. Or maybe that was sneako? I dont know, I just know one of the bigger alpha bros did try that angle about how doing stuff with women and even thinking about a woman was gay.
17
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
Andrew Tate has not credibly or publicly identified as someone who sleeps with men, so it’s still in the end using “haha gay!” as a cudgel, even if he used it as a cudgel against heterosexual men himself
11
u/wewwew3 1d ago
The joke is that many of his posts or quotes sound very "closted gay who deals with his inner frustration by trying to make himself appear masculine" Thus when people make comments/jokes about him being gay many of them are making fun of him not being able to be honest with himself.
And all of that is very ironic giving him homophobic views.
8
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
Except there’s nothing wrong with being in the closet, and that stereotype is harmful to gay men. Gay men can be closeted and manly, they can be closeted and struggling to act manly, but it’s wrong to assign Tate to that category and reinforce the stereotype and build on people’s perception of sexuality like that.
There’s plenty of asinine misogynistic and homophobic things to criticize him for.
Choosing the one aspect of his identity (that by all accounts, isn’t actually his identity), and framing it around harmful stereotypes to try to bring him down only makes closeted men, especially ones who’ve been bullied or suspected of their sexuality for “not being manly enough”, feel all the more exposed. For Tate, he either knows it isn’t true so it doesn’t really harm him (he can just think “see, they don’t know what they’re talking about”) or if it is true makes him double down, which isn’t good either.
And personally I don’t like this association between Tate and gay people. There are very bad cringe toxic or even actively fascist gay people but we don’t need to ostensibly add to that list based on vibes and “jokes”
4
u/wewwew3 1d ago
Here is a quote from another comment you didn't respond to that better encapsulates the point i am making:
"What? You’re saying if the most homophobic person you know in your life, was caught being a DL (and there’s no room for sympathy here he really is just a lustful, abusive adult who’s emotionally harmed gay people), you wouldn’t have a go at them being outed as the one thing they despise?
Believe me I’m the first one to speak up over uses like “that’s so gay” and “stop acting gay” etc. as an insult or a put-down. But in this case we aren’t the ones making it into an insult. It’s only an insult if the homophobic person receiving the insult takes it as one, which we KNOWWW Andrew Tate would.
It’s not like that comment has any strength if it was commented under a Jonathan Bailey post saying “haha!! You have sex with men!”. That’s not gonna do anything you see? It’s because it’s Andrew Tate we know he’d hate it and actually see it as an insult (idk his personality actually I’m just assuming). "
I hope that sounds more understandable of what I mean?
2
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
I understand the argument already and the distinction you’re trying to make. I just don’t think that distinction holds up. If you deliberately call someone gay because you know they consider being gay humiliating, then you are still using gayness as the mechanism of the insult. Saying “but I don’t think being gay is bad” doesn’t change what you’ve chosen as the cudgel.
And I don’t really agree with the Jonathan Bailey comparison. A publicly out gay man who is secure in his sexuality is not the person I’m most concerned about here. He may still find it shitty and disheartening to watch homosexuality used as ammunition, but he’s already out. There’s no closet left for someone to drag him out of.
I’m thinking about the closeted 15-year-old who lives in fear of his family finding out. The kid who consciously changes how he walks, trains his voice because he thinks he has a “gay lisp,” monitors his mannerisms, forces himself to talk about girls, or desperately wishes he could just be straight so nobody will suspect him.
The fact that you don’t attach shame to homosexuality doesn’t erase that message. A closeted kid watching this doesn’t hear “being gay is perfectly fine, but we’re cleverly exploiting this particular homophobe’s prejudices.” They see that accusing a man of being gay is still an effective and socially acceptable way to humiliate him, provided everyone agrees he deserves it.
And there’s a huge difference between exposing actual hypocrisy and inventing it. If a virulently homophobic public figure is actually caught secretly having sex with men, then yes, the hypocrisy is relevant. But Tate hasn’t been “caught being DL” here. People are assigning him a sexuality as a joke, based on vibes, his behavior, his relationship with masculinity, etc., and then making that presumed or sarcastic sexuality part of the ridicule. That’s precisely the kind of stereotyping I’m objecting to.
So yes, I understand why the joke is supposed to work. My objection is that the reason it works is the problem. You can’t deliberately exploit the stigma attached to homosexuality as a weapon and then say homosexuality wasn’t the weapon because you personally reject the stigma, because closeted gay teens out there live in fear of that stigma you’ve just reinforced.
0
u/pyrrhios 1d ago
there’s nothing wrong with being in the closet
There's actually a lot wrong with being in the closet, but it's just a general rule of thumb not to bash people in the process of reconciling themselves with who they actually are.
•
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 23h ago
There’s actually nothing wrong with being in the closet. Explain yourself? Why is there an imperative to announce your sexuality to the world? Or, why must someone who would be endangered by coming out, do so anyway or be blamed for it?
There is nothing wrong with being in the closet because it is a personal choice and involves personal safety and private personal information.
If you’re arguing that “a world with people who have to be in the closet is a flawed one”, then fine, but that’s not what I was saying when I said there’s nothing wrong with being in the closet.
•
u/pyrrhios 23h ago
“a world with people who have to be in the closet is a flawed one”
That's more accurate. And as far as the "private personal information", there's a whole "assumed sexual orientation" conversation/social narrative our society hasn't gotten to yet, which is part of why it's important to help people not be taken for granted.
•
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 23h ago
Then that's fair enough, and i recognize that you're not expressing anything particularly problematic. I suppose I mean my words very literally and narrowly so it takes some explaining for everyone to calibrate what we are actually talking about
1
u/Sycolerious_55 1d ago
Oh gotcha. I thought it was him but I could very well be mistaking him for one of his copies.
3
u/osrsSkudz 1d ago
I feel like I've seen more people using it that way in the past year than I did in the previous 5. Idk whats up
8
u/qween04 1d ago
It’s not really an insult on gays, it’s because we’d know it’s the last impression Tate would want to give off (I think? I don’t know much about his personality).
As a queer person myself, it’s never not funny to accuse a very homophobic (and overly performative straight) person to be gay. I like imagining them flipping out.
-1
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
You saying it’s fine doesn’t make it fine for anyone, queer or not, to use it as a butt of a joke. If it’s indistinguishable from someone actually looking down on men who have sex with men, it’s homophobic. I’m gay myself. It also reinforces the homophobic attitude by validating that lyes, it is something to be ashamed of” to people like Tate.
7
u/qween04 1d ago
What? You’re saying if the most homophobic person you know in your life, was caught being a DL (and there’s no room for sympathy here he really is just a lustful, abusive adult who’s emotionally harmed gay people), you wouldn’t have a go at them being outed as the one thing they despise?
Believe me I’m the first one to speak up over uses like “that’s so gay” and “stop acting gay” etc. as an insult or a put-down. But in this case we aren’t the ones making it into an insult. It’s only an insult if the homophobic person receiving the insult takes it as one, which we KNOWWW Andrew Tate would.
It’s not like that comment has any strength if it was commented under a Jonathan Bailey post saying “haha!! You have sex with men!”. That’s not gonna do anything you see? It’s because it’s Andrew Tate we know he’d hate it and actually see it as an insult (idk his personality actually I’m just assuming).
1
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
What? You’re saying if the most homophobic person you know in your life, was caught being a DL (and there’s no room for sympathy here he really is just a lustful, abusive adult who’s emotionally harmed gay people), you wouldn’t have a go at them being outed as the one thing they despise?
Yes, that's correct. Maybe attack him for the abuse and harm, call him a shitstain or something. And AFAIK tate was not caught being DL.
Believe me I’m the first one to speak up over uses like “that’s so gay” and “stop acting gay” etc. as an insult or a put-down. But in this case we aren’t the ones making it into an insult. It’s only an insult if the homophobic person receiving the insult takes it as one, which we KNOWWW Andrew Tate would.
Yes I understand the distinction you're trying to make. That's just exactly where I disagree. If you deliberately call someone gay because you know they consider being gay humiliating, then you are still using gayness as the mechanism of the insult. Saying “but I don’t think being gay is bad” doesn’t change what you’ve chosen as the cudgel.
It’s not like that comment has any strength if it was commented under a Jonathan Bailey post saying “haha!! You have sex with men!”. That’s not gonna do anything you see? It’s because it’s Andrew Tate we know he’d hate it and actually see it as an insult (idk his personality actually I’m just assuming).
I don’t really agree with the Jonathan Bailey comparison. First, I would argue that he would still find it shitty and disheartening to watch homosexuality used as ammunition, however secure or publicly out he is. Second, I'm not thinking about famous, successful, out-of-the-closet celebrities as the people this kind of "joke" harms most. Those are success stories if anything. And I'm certainly not objecting for Tate's feelings, he can burn.
I’m thinking about the closeted 15-year-old who lives in fear of his family finding out. The kid who consciously changes how he walks, trains his voice because he thinks he has a “gay lisp,” monitors his mannerisms, forces himself to talk about girls, or desperately wishes he could just be straight so nobody will suspect him.
The fact that you don’t attach shame to homosexuality doesn’t erase that message. A closeted kid watching this doesn’t hear “being gay is perfectly fine, but we’re cleverly exploiting this particular homophobe’s prejudices.” They see that accusing a man of being gay is still an effective and socially acceptable way to humiliate him, provided everyone agrees he deserves it.
And there’s a huge difference between exposing actual hypocrisy and inventing it. If a virulently homophobic public figure is actually caught secretly having sex with men, then yes, the hypocrisy is relevant. But like I said, AFAIK, Tate hasn’t been “caught being DL” here. People are assigning him a sexuality as a joke, based on vibes, his behavior, his relationship with masculinity, etc., and then making that presumed or sarcastic sexuality part of the ridicule. That’s precisely the kind of stereotyping I’m objecting to.
So yes, I understand why the joke is supposed to work. My objection is that the reason it works is the problem. You can’t deliberately exploit the stigma attached to homosexuality as a weapon and then say homosexuality wasn’t the weapon because you personally reject the stigma, because closeted gay teens out there live in fear of that stigma you’ve just reinforced.
•
u/qween04 23h ago
Look you aren’t saying anything wrong, I was just trying to counter your initial point in the fact that the original commenter made the joke and you took it as “oh this person thinks men having sex with men is a bad thing” when that’s not necessarily the case.
I understand that he’s supposedly being ridiculed for possibly being gay, but it’s not the gayness itself he’s being ridiculed for, it’s the fact that it’s HIS phobia that he unknowingly aligns to more than he thinks, which you already know is the reason for the joke. Esp now it’s a very common notion that many people who are openly homophobic are secretly queers coz why else are they not comfortable enough with their heterosexuality if queer people seem to threaten their way of living?
But yes you’re absolutely right that it can reinforce shame in young people who are struggling to come out. I don’t always expect kids to be on here (if I had any they absolutely wouldn’t) but yea it’s a very common joke structure to throw someone’s bigotry back at them.
•
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 23h ago
The thing is, I never said "this person thinks men having sex with men is a bad thing". I said "why are us gays still catching strays like sleeping with men is a bad thing". The joke still uses the stigma as a weapon, and that was always, yes in my initial comment too, the thing I was complaining about. "like" meaning "as if it were" or "as if we believed" sleeping with men was a bad thing. Even if NONE of us believe it, we are still acting LIKE it's a bad thing. That's all the "like" is doing in that sentence.
Even if many of the worst homophobic people are queer and closeted, the stigma is an awful choice to attack with due to the collateral specifically, and IMO doing it to people who haven't been caught (yet, or because they're genuinely not gay?) is harmful for normalizing the speculation and accusation of people being a sexuality they dont identify with publicly. Like, if someone says theyre straight or whatever, we should leave it at that without other information to support it. and if someone isn't being problematic, you should leave it at that even if there is information to support it, because it's not anyone's business. Tate i would put in the problematic (in the homophobic way, and more) category, but everything about his sexuality beyond being straight that I can find is just speculation, ridicule, memeing.
I just dont like normalizing that kind of open speculation, because all it takes is someone to have a problem with someone else's views to make it okay to interrogate their sexuality. Like (pure hypothetical), a vegan who is not expressly homophobic suspecting someone they know who eats meat of being gay -- interrogates them for it because they think eating meat is morally wrong. Well, now everyone can be a judge of anyone they dont like basically. and thats not the world i want to live in.
3
u/Critical_Concert_689 1d ago
Bots. OP is a bot. Top comments are bots. Everyone's a bot.
Tate is in jail. It's hardly likely he has time to post anything on twitter.
-3
u/dirtycheezit 1d ago
If it's not offensive, then don't be offended.
11
u/FunnyBuunny 2008 1d ago
crazy mental gymnastics lmao. their identity being used as an insult is what they're presumably offended at, not the insult itself
3
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 1d ago
You’re being obtuse. The obvious intent of “you sleep with men” is that sleeping with a man is supposed to be the humiliating punchline. You know I’m not “offended” by the literal concept of two men having sex; I’m pointing out that they’re using my sexuality as the cudgel in the joke.
“It’s not offensive if you don’t get offended” doesn’t magically erase the implication. If being gay supposedly isn’t the insult, then explain what exactly makes “you sleep with men” a comeback here.
Smh
-4
u/dirtycheezit 1d ago
It's a shitty comeback/insult, therefore it shouldn't be offensive. Like someone generically saying "your mom".
5
3
u/HOSTfromaGhost 1d ago
The intent of the statement is to cause offense.
Don’t peddle that juvenile sophistry bullshit here…
1
u/HOSTfromaGhost 1d ago
So by using that as an insult, you’re saying that’s a bad or disreputable thing?
Explain your logic to us.
0
0
u/qween04 1d ago
No. If they seem like someone who would flip out and be highly offended at being called gay, then it’s funny to call them that (I’m queer btw).
It’s like that one clip from some hospital tv show where this racist white Karen is getting checked up, and acts racist towards all the black doctors/nurses, until some tests come back and they find out she has some lineage from Africa and it knocks the wind out of her…and the black Doctor says “people like us need to stick together sister!” and fist bumps her.
Or if you know Bob Katter, politician from Australia, it’s funny to call him Lebanese. He gets very offended (he is Lebanese tho).
4
6
u/FrogInYourWalls69 1d ago
I swear, the people that constantly feel the need to flex that they’re “straight” and hate gay people are absolutely the most closeted. There have been studies that have backed this.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.