Poll: Young adults grow uneasier with LGBTQ

[TimothyC]

Students in an LGBTQ service-oriented organization at Ohio State University think the campus is a generally safe space.

But they've heard their peers question why a character in a movie had to be gay. They've also seen roommate postings requiring that the person must be straight.

So they weren't altogether surprised when a recent report signaled decreasing comfort levels with LGBTQ people among young non-LGBTQ adults.

“People are still saying that they support equal rights, because they have the potential to be socially isolated if they don’t support equal rights,” said Ohio State senior Hannah Messer, co-president of Students for Diversity in Education through Service. “(But) saying that you support equal rights and being an ally are two very different things.”

Just 45% of adults ages 18 to 34 said in 2018 that they were comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people, according to the recent Accelerating Acceptance survey conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD. That’s down from 53% in 2017, and 63% in 2016.

The downturn upsets LGBTQ advocates, nationally and locally.

“We can’t take anything for granted,” said Grant Stancliff, communications director for the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Ohio. “There’s an implicit assumption that we are on a course of progress, and that time is the most important factor (and) that kind of no matter what we do in our day-to-day, that it will get better just by the nature of time passing.”

GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis sounded a similar alarm, pointing to a contentious political climate and culture. GLAAD and other organizations supporting LGBTQ people have said that the Trump administration’s “discriminatory policies and targeted rhetoric” have helped pave the way for others’ intolerance.

“The younger generation has traditionally been thought of as a beacon of progressive values,” Ellis said in a written statement released with the report. “We have taken that idea for granted, and this year’s results show that the sharp and quick rise in divisive rhetoric in politics and culture is having a negative influence on younger Americans.”

The survey results were surprising to Erin Upchurch, executive director of Kaleidoscope Youth Center, which supports LGBTQ people ages 12-24.

“That doesn’t seem to reflect my experience with that population, that age group,” she said. “I have way more questions than answers.”

She pointed to the interactions of her teenage son and his friends, for example.

"It goes beyond being inclusive," she said. "They just create environments where everyone can belong.

"When I feel surprised by research, that is why.”

More generally, representation and acceptance of LGBTQ people has seemingly increased — from more LGBTQ characters in television and movies to growing numbers of gender-sexuality alliance clubs in local schools. Kaleidoscope defines those groups as student-run clubs that provide "a safe place for students to meet, support each other, talk about issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, and work to end transphobia and homophobia."

When marginalized people move closer to having rights and full equality, those outside that group can feel as if they’re losing something, Upchurch said. “There could just be folks who feel like it’s being pushed in their face, honestly, and it’s moving too fast,” she said.

That might not present itself in outright hateful comments, said Ryan Cloutier, president of Pride OSU, a campus social organization aimed at providing safe and welcoming environments for LGBTQ students and allies. But he sees hints of discomfort from time to time, such as when someone gives a funny look or makes a comment about the rainbow stickers on his laptop.

"A lot of people don’t want to be outwardly hateful, especially on college campuses," said Cloutier, a junior. "(But) I can definitely pick up on discomfort or other sort of avoidance or other sort of subtle things that make it clear that they’re not OK with me or other people in my community.”

Cloutier thinks the divisive political climate has in part led to young adults' decreasing comfort with LGBTQ people reported in the survey. But he also suspects that the downturn could be because survey respondents are starting to think of transgender people when they hear "LGBTQ," when in previous years they might have thought primarily of gay people.

"Now the trans-rights movement is having a really big push into the mainstream," Cloutier said. "People are finally thinking about trans people and how they feel about trans people. I think a lot of people are having to confront transphobia … and have to deal with trans people trying to actually be part of society.”

Advocacy groups view the new report as a catalyst.

People shouldn’t lose sight of the young people who truly are working toward a more accepting and inclusive world, Upchurch said. Yet it shouldn’t be taken for granted, she added. “It just shows our work is not really done,” she said.

SDES at Ohio State, which has more than 20 members, already had a goal of becoming more visible on campus, its leaders said. “This report just puts even more fire behind that,” Messer said.

[Jub]

Shouldn't the title by 'Young Adults in the US Grow Uneasier with LGBTQ'? This doesn't seem to be a study of global or even first world western views.

[Gandalf]

Shouldn't the title by 'Young Adults in the US Grow Uneasier with LGBTQ'? This doesn't seem to be a study of global or even first world western views.

Indeed. It's also interesting that the anecdotal parts come from Ohio, the state that elected raging theocrat Kasich.

[Jub]

Indeed. It's also interesting that the anecdotal parts come from Ohio, the state that elected raging theocrat Kasich.

Plus there's also sample size to consider as well as the fact that being more visible and out as a minority group will generate more strong responses either way. It could partially be the case that an apathetic shrug of vaguely positive feelings has been replaced with more polarized views spurred on my current US politics.

[Solauren]

There is also the possibility of oversaturation, as well as 'now it's forcing it down our throat.'

I have a very good friend that is gay. I've known him since I was 14, and he confirmed his orientation to me when I was 20. I'm turning 43 at the start of November, he's turning 42. I stood beside him when he came out in general and people abandonded them. He was on the short list for an invitation to my wedding (as it was, if any more of my family had accepted, we might have had to find a bigger venue). I would have made his, but it was far enough out of area, I would have skipped it even if he was family.

I also have several transgender, bisexual, etc friends as well. The two transgenders have been invited to join my bi-weekly RPG games.

I point this out, to put things into context before I continue

I think that the 'vocal minority/stupidity' as taken root, people will start to cater to them, as they always do, and that it will start to cause a bit of a backlash. We'll see it in more 'conservative' places first, and go from there.

Hopefully, the backlash will be in the line of. "Hey, we know X exists, we accept it, but you don't HAVE to make it so omnipresent". Hopefully, things will 'stabalize' before the backlash gets violent.

[Marko Dash]

my stance on this is the same as if you'd asked me about gay people 10-15 years ago. i'm completely fine with it as long as they're not trying to rub my face in it.

problem is now the 'activists' are trying to rub our faces in it.

[Tribble]

my stance on this is the same as if you'd asked me about gay people 10-15 years ago. i'm completely fine with it as long as they're not trying to rub my face in it.

problem is now the 'activists' are trying to rub our faces in it.

“Activists” can always end up doing more harm than good, regardless of what group they are in.

I am interested in what you mean. Is there something about the LGBT community in particular that bothers you, in comparison to, say, religious communities? Ethnic communities? Pro-women’s rights groups?

For example, what is worse in your mind? An LGBT person being overly militant on LGBT rights, or member of a religious community going around condemning X group and saying they all deserve to go to hell?

While activists of all stripes can be a major problem, I do see a big difference between LGBT and Black activists etc vs religious and pro-white activists. While the former may be too militant and in your face at times, generally speaking they are ultimately about promoting equality; the ladder tends to be dedicated to preventing/eliminating rights from whatever groups offends their particular beliefs.

[The Romulan Republic]

my stance on this is the same as if you'd asked me about gay people 10-15 years ago. i'm completely fine with it as long as they're not trying to rub my face in it.

problem is now the 'activists' are trying to rub our faces in it.

Keep in mind that a big part of the reason that (some) activists are trying to "rub our faces in it" is because they spent decades being told to keep it in the closet. There is a long history of "You can be gay, as long as straight people don't have to see it or hear it or acknowledge it or be made uncomfortable by it."

So I think I sort of get (as much as one can without being in their shoes) why they'd want to assert their identity as aggressively as possible, now that they can.

[bilateralrope]

my stance on this is the same as if you'd asked me about gay people 10-15 years ago. i'm completely fine with it as long as they're not trying to rub my face in it.

problem is now the 'activists' are trying to rub our faces in it.

Could you elaborate give some examples of things that are rubbing your face in it and some things that aren't.

I've seen people complain that a gay TV character talking about his husband is rubbing their face in it. I don't want to assume you're that homophobic, so I need more detail.

[loomer]

my stance on this is the same as if you'd asked me about gay people 10-15 years ago. i'm completely fine with it as long as they're not trying to rub my face in it.

problem is now the 'activists' are trying to rub our faces in it.

Openly gay characters with romance plots and sex scenes are not rubbing your face in it any more than openly straight characters with romance plots and sex scenes are.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, I often feel like my face is rubbed in hetero-normative relationships with TV and movies adding gratuitous love interests to stories that don't require them or are actually diminished by them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, I often feel like my face is rubbed in hetero-normative relationships with TV and movies adding gratuitous love interests to stories that don't require them or are actually diminished by them.

Yup, and one of the fastest ways for a TV show or film to earn my respect is by not automatically pairing up its male and female leads because its the convention.

[Solauren]

Agreed with the 'not automatically pairing' the leads. Putting tension into that develops into a relationship is one thing, but auto-tossing them is usually bad.

As for the activists getting in your face, yeah, that's alot of what I see. However, now it just seems, arrogant. For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

[Jub]

For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

What's wrong with it? They're clothed, not doing anything inappropriate, and living their lifestyle while doing a daily task. You sound like people who complain about women going topless at the beach or gay people making out in public.

[Solauren]

For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

What's wrong with it? They're clothed, not doing anything inappropriate, and living their lifestyle while doing a daily task. You sound like people who complain about women going topless at the beach or gay people making out in public.

I never said there is anything wrong with it. I said it's the type of behaviour that is going to cause a blow back.

[Tribble]

For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

What's wrong with it? They're clothed, not doing anything inappropriate, and living their lifestyle while doing a daily task. You sound like people who complain about women going topless at the beach or gay people making out in public.

I never said there is anything wrong with it. I said it's the type of behaviour that is going to cause a blow back.

And how often would you say that happens on a typical day?

I think you live in the Toronto too, right? It’s probably one of the most diverse and LGBT supportive cities in the world, and apart from Pride I’ve yet to see any LGBT people causally walking around in biker-dom suits or dog-furry gimp suits, let alone see them walking into children's stores on purpose to show off how gay they are. Not even in gay village. I guess it could happen, but that’s pretty rare. I’m guessing that’s some kind of personal experience?

And speaking of Pride, as problematic as it can be today the fact remains that the main reason why homosexuals have any rights in this country at all is because they got fed up of being persecuted and decided to draw attention to their plight by getting into people’s faces with it.

We should perhaps be a bit more specific though - female homosexuals are generally tolerated a lot better than male homosexuals. Two attractive women in bikinis that started making out in the middle of the street would draw attention to themselves, but likely the bulk of that attention would be people (especially guys) watching and cheering them on. Whereas two men in Speedos doing the same thing would much more likely be seen as something vulgar and disgusting.

Perhaps that stems from biblical texts which condemn male homosexuals to death but doesn’t have anything to say about women, therefore for them it’s less of a sin?

[loomer]

Agreed with the 'not automatically pairing' the leads. Putting tension into that develops into a relationship is one thing, but auto-tossing them is usually bad.

As for the activists getting in your face, yeah, that's alot of what I see. However, now it just seems, arrogant. For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

It's interesting to me that you assume this is something to do with LGBTQ issues, rather than fetishists who don't know the appropriate margin. Why is that?

For example, walking into a clothing store, that is mostly childrens clothing (ValueVillage), in your biker-dom suit, with your partner on a leash in a dog-furry gimp suit, is not only crossing the line, it's a slap in the face.

What's wrong with it? They're clothed, not doing anything inappropriate, and living their lifestyle while doing a daily task. You sound like people who complain about women going topless at the beach or gay people making out in public.

You do not involve non-consenting people with your kink. This is a foundational principle of both SSC and RACK.

[Bedlam]

They've also seen roommate postings requiring that the person must be straight.

This is an interesting issue to raise for me, is it also considered discriminatory to require roommates to be a particular sex? Can you choose to select a roommate who you know will not be sexually attracted to you if you want?

[Tribble]

They've also seen roommate postings requiring that the person must be straight.

This is an interesting issue to raise for me, is it also considered discriminatory to require roommates to be a particular sex? Can you choose to select a roommate who you know will not be sexually attracted to you if you want?

If it’s allowed presumably you’d also have to allow people to require their roommates to be a particular race, religion, creed etc.

[Raw Shark]

They've also seen roommate postings requiring that the person must be straight.

This is an interesting issue to raise for me, is it also considered discriminatory to require roommates to be a particular sex? Can you choose to select a roommate who you know will not be sexually attracted to you if you want?

My reasonably free-wheelin' college handled this by just giving the guy a straight male roommate (okay, he was actually bi, but I'll give them benefit of the doubt on not knowing that) who terrorized the kid in other ways, and by quietly telling enough people about it that his light-mockery nickname indelibly became "Heterosexual Firstname Lastname" the second it became known that there were now two Firstname Lastnames on campus. The girls who wanted all-girl bathrooms every fall never got jack, though.

Fucking your college roommate is a dumpster fire anyway. Everybody knows that.

[Jub]

You do not involve non-consenting people with your kink. This is a foundational principle of both SSC and RACK.

Unless you're doing more than just wearing the costume and holding the leash in public you're not exactly in full on play mode. Unless you have somebody else hold their leash or ask them to otherwise participate nobody else is being involved in your kink. This is less in your face than the two of them making out publically and we'd call people prudes for claiming that involved anybody else in a sexual fashion.

This is just people being prudish about kink costuming in public and my thought is boo hoo, you'll get used to it as more people feel comfortable letting that particular flag fly in public.

As for SSC and RACK there are other perfectly fine models of kink ethics that have their own guidelines for what is acceptable and even under the two you mentioned this isn't forcing anybody to do anything with either person mentioned thus far.

[loomer]

You do not involve non-consenting people with your kink. This is a foundational principle of both SSC and RACK.

Unless you're doing more than just wearing the costume and holding the leash in public you're not exactly in full on play mode. Unless you have somebody else hold their leash or ask them to otherwise participate nobody else is being involved in your kink. This is less in your face than the two of them making out publically and we'd call people prudes for claiming that involved anybody else in a sexual fashion.

The costumes are an inherent part of the fetish - they aren't worn just because, they are worn in an inherently sexual fashion. The gear itself is play when it's full on gimp suitery and leash and not just a discreet collar, and so appearing in public in them is, in fact, involving others. It's fine if that's the space - it's another matter if it isn't. Reading the space is an inherent part of navigating all social boundaries.

You may wish, at this point, to imply a double standard on my part and compare kink to sexuality. I would strongly advise against that, but if you want, we can go down that road.

This is just people being prudish about kink costuming in public and my thought is boo hoo, you'll get used to it as more people feel comfortable letting that particular flag fly in public.

No, it's people expecting people to respect boundaries around what is and isn't acceptable in public. In the same way that we might request that people not swear at the top of their lungs or make out out of costume in the hypothetical toy store, we can ask them not to come in in fetish wear.

As for SSC and RACK there are other perfectly fine models of kink ethics that have their own guidelines for what is acceptable and even under the two you mentioned this isn't forcing anybody to do anything with either person mentioned thus far.

Any model of ethics that is okay with involving non-consenting parties in your kink is not in fact a model of ethics, let alone a perfectly fine one. As a kinky fuck: Fuck off.

[Jub]

The costumes are an inherent part of the fetish - they aren't worn just because, they are worn in an inherently sexual fashion. The gear itself is play when it's full on gimp suitery and leash and not just a discreet collar, and so appearing in public in them is, in fact, involving others. It's fine if that's the space - it's another matter if it isn't. Reading the space is an inherent part of navigating all social boundaries.

No shit the clothing and gear is part of the fetish. Does that matter though? If their fetish instead involved something more publically acceptable like a speedo or even cross-dressing would you have the same reaction? If not, what's the difference.

So should women read the space and never breastfeed or go topless in public? Should the LGBT community have read the space and never started marching for pride? You'll never change what is and isn't acceptable in public spaces unless you push boundaries.

You may wish, at this point, to imply a double standard on my part and compare kink to sexuality. I would strongly advise against that, but if you want, we can go down that road.

In places where it would be legal to do so, would you have an issue with a woman being topless in the space?

No, it's people expecting people to respect boundaries around what is and isn't acceptable in public. In the same way that we might request that people not swear at the top of their lungs or make out out of costume in the hypothetical toy store, we can ask them not to come in in fetish wear.

Why is swearing in a toy store any worse than swearing anywhere else? It's an expressive form of language with proven health benefits. Culturally it makes little sense to deny that coping tool to children because of a bunch of prudes.

Making out is the same. Who does it harm?

Any model of ethics that is okay with involving non-consenting parties in your kink is not in fact a model of ethics, let alone a perfectly fine one. As a kinky fuck: Fuck off.

Does merely existing and passing through a space really involve anybody else? Also, as a kinky fuck myself you can equally go fuck yourself with the prudish horse you rode in on.

[loomer]

The costumes are an inherent part of the fetish - they aren't worn just because, they are worn in an inherently sexual fashion. The gear itself is play when it's full on gimp suitery and leash and not just a discreet collar, and so appearing in public in them is, in fact, involving others. It's fine if that's the space - it's another matter if it isn't. Reading the space is an inherent part of navigating all social boundaries.

No shit the clothing and gear is part of the fetish. Does that matter though? If their fetish instead involved something more publically acceptable like a speedo or even cross-dressing would you have the same reaction? If not, what's the difference.

So should women read the space and never breastfeed or go topless in public? Should the LGBT community have read the space and never started marching for pride? You'll never change what is and isn't acceptable in public spaces unless you push boundaries.

If someone is crossdressing or wearing a speedo for the express purpose of sexual gratification in a public arena that isn't a sexual space? Yes, I'd have the same reaction.

As for breastfeeding, no - because it is an innate bodily function. As for pride, no, because pride involves the creation of new boundaries and was further a deliberate strategy to renegotiate the existing boundaries to fight for basic equal rights for something that was not and is not a mere sexual peccadilo but rather an inherent component of identity outside of individual choice. However, I do find it interesting you equate a normal bodily function with a sexual fetish, and a sexual identity with a kink. Why is that?

You may wish, at this point, to imply a double standard on my part and compare kink to sexuality. I would strongly advise against that, but if you want, we can go down that road.

In places where it would be legal to do so, would you have an issue with a woman being topless in the space?

In spaces where it would be inappropriate, sure. I don't think men should be topless in a church any more than women, for instance. But again, why is it that you wish to equate simple body freedom and the desexualization of the bare breast with what is an inherently sexual act?

No, it's people expecting people to respect boundaries around what is and isn't acceptable in public. In the same way that we might request that people not swear at the top of their lungs or make out out of costume in the hypothetical toy store, we can ask them not to come in in fetish wear.

Why is swearing in a toy store any worse than swearing anywhere else? It's an expressive form of language with proven health benefits. Culturally it makes little sense to deny that coping tool to children because of a bunch of prudes.

Making out is the same. Who does it harm?

Certainly, swearing can have health benefits. However, someone swearing at the top of their lungs is also disruptive and infringes on people's freedom to be left to enjoy the space in peace, to browse without disruption, etc. As for why the toy store is worse, that's pretty simple: Any time we involve children, we have an additional obligation to give them positive inputs that help them navigate life and social boundaries later on. This is the distinction between teaching them swearing as as an expressive form of language that can help manage stress, and just swearing however and whenever we like in front of them, regardless of the impact it has.

Any model of ethics that is okay with involving non-consenting parties in your kink is not in fact a model of ethics, let alone a perfectly fine one. As a kinky fuck: Fuck off.

Does merely existing and passing through a space really involve anybody else? Also, as a kinky fuck myself you can equally go fuck yourself with the prudish horse you rode in on.

Expecting people to understand boundaries and to not push their kink on others - and yes, exhibitionism does push it on others - is not prudery. It is a matter of respect. If you cannot understand this, kindly refrain from entering public arenas from now on.

[Jub]

If someone is crossdressing or wearing a speedo for the express purpose of sexual gratification in a public arena that isn't a sexual space? Yes, I'd have the same reaction.

How would you be able to tell? Why is one type of fetish wear special and icky while other types are fine?

Why is that?

Kink is no more of a 'choice' than orientation. Unless you deliberately picked what turns you on it's the same combination of lived experience and natural brain chemistry as every other aspect of your sexuality. So why do you feel that orientation is somehow special?

In spaces where it would be inappropriate, sure. I don't think men should be topless in a church any more than women, for instance.

I don't think anybody should be in a church, but what does it matter if you're topless? Does God dislike praying while shirtless or something?

But again, why is it that you wish to equate simple body freedom and the desexualization of the bare breast with what is an inherently sexual act?

Some people consider breasts to be inherently sexual and given that they are secondary sexual characteristics made permanently engorged to attract mates it's hard to argue that there is no sexual aspect to women's breasts. So may I ask you why clothing is more sexual in your eyes than literal sex characteristics?

Certainly, swearing can have health benefits. However, someone swearing at the top of their lungs is also disruptive and infringes on people's freedom to be left to enjoy the space in peace, to browse without disruption, etc. As for why the toy store is worse, that's pretty simple: Any time we involve children, we have an additional obligation to give them positive inputs that help them navigate life and social boundaries later on. This is the distinction between teaching them swearing as as an expressive form of language that can help manage stress, and just swearing however and whenever we like in front of them, regardless of the impact it has.

Prove that sporadic exposure to such behavior, as in your toy store example, has any negative impact on a child's development. I'll patiently await your evidence.

Expecting people to understand boundaries and to not push their kink on others - and yes, exhibitionism does push it on others - is not prudery. It is a matter of respect. If you cannot understand this, kindly refrain from entering public arenas from now on.

Public nudity is accepted in some places as are public displays of sexuality that the west doesn't condone. Why do you consider exhibitionism harmful when it's practiced in other places without causing harm? Why do you consider sexuality different than any other human behavior that we consider acceptable?