I mean it was the first ever permanent bridge crossing the Thames in London, and for a long time it was the only bridge in the entirety of east London (despite barely being east of the east-west midpoint of London). London bridge has a lot of interesting history, even if the current one is visually boring.
Jay Foreman has a fun video on the history of London Bridge (https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk)
There's a fun video on the history of old/medium/new London bridge in Jay Foreman's Unfinished London series:
It's not "oppression Olympics" to point out that it's insulting to equate a minor dick move towards straight people with the ongoing systemic persecution of trans people.
Most notably and importantly because straight people AREN'T oppressed. There is no large scale legal systemic discrimination or oppression of straight people, anywhere on earth. Individual dick heads being asses is not the same as large scale, systemic and legal persecution.
Here's a question for you: Rape "jokes" are never acceptable. But, would you consider making rape "jokes" towards a woman who was never victimised the same level of shitty behaviour as making a rape "joke" towards a woman who you know is a rape survivor. And how would you react if someone was arguing that those two situations are totally comparable and equally bad.
If your answers to those questions are "of course not" and "outraged", congratulations, you agree with my point.
It's not infighting or scorekeeping to point out that by and large trans people in western countries, at the moment, face far more identity based hate, discrimination and persecution than straight people do.
It's also not infighting to point out the hypocrisy in people on the internet and broader society, outside of explicitly curated trans friendly spaces, regularly getting far more outraged at cis het people receiving hate or discrimination or shitty behaviour for their identity, than they do for the ongoing legal and social persecution of trans people.
Pointing that out is also isn't defending shitty behaviour towards straight people. Poking at the insecurities of anyone is unacceptable. But in my opinion, equating the two as similarly bad, is demeaning, insulting and belittling towards the massive struggles trans people face.
Also, even if you do decide to try it with a partner who wants to try your scheduled sex idea, I would definitely not start with sex.
Start slowly, by for example offering to jerk him off, or allowing him to masturbate to your naked body. Try it out slowly, and then see if you're both comfortable with, and (at least he is) actually enjoying this type and level of intimacy, before jumping straight to penetrative sex.
It's a very delicate affair, not just for you, but for the man as well. Having sex with a woman who is unresponsive, and just passively accepting, has a potential to make your partner subconsciously feel like they're abusing, or even raping, you (even if you explicitly give consent, the subconscious is rarely swayed by rational arguments), which has the potential to lead to serious sexual trauma.
Even with high sleight of hand, there's so many vault doors to open, that unless you roll exceptionally well, you'll still blow through a bunch of lock picks. It's just so much faster to stand in the middle of the room and spam knock 10 times, vs. needing to o go through 1-3 lock picking rolls for every door you wanna open.
Though nothing compared to the high security, unknockable safes, those are pain in the Ass. Even with level 12 rogue astarian, and graceful cloth for advantage on Dex checks, it still usually takes me around 3-4 attempts on average to pick each high security safe.
IMO, it's a difference in severity, not in kind. It's a fairly regular thing for bullying victims to kill themselves or get seriously injured or killed by their bullies.
That true, and it's awful, but it's not BECAUSE they were called specifically gay, at least in the majority of cases. Switching "gay" for any other generic insult/slur wouldn't make the bullying less bad or impactful in the vast majority of cases, whereas for a trans person there is virtually always a massive, massive difference between just being genericly insulted/harassed and it being specifically misgendered/targeted at their gender identity. So IMO, it also very much is a difference in kind.
Go a couple of decades back and out homosexuals, especially men, were exactly where trans people are now. Remember how the Republicans handled AIDS, or how male homosexual acts were literally illegal in many western countries until like the 90s or early 00s?
We're not IN the 90s or 00s anymore. Trans people are facing this level of persecution and discrimination today. It's also not comparable, because it is much easier to keep gayness a secret Vs keeping transness a secret. That isn't supposed to make light of the suffering of gay people in 80s to 00s, just pointing out that gayness isn't necessary an outward expressing. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Being trans is directly, intrinsically and inseparably linked with your outward expression.
Bottomline is, don't say your "friend" is a different sexuality or gender than you know they are, just as a test.
Yes. A point that I have literally made explicitly several times already, and yet everyone here is pretending as though I said it's perfectly fine, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it to do pull this shit. The only point I've made is that, as sucky and shitty as it is to call a straight person gay, it's demeaning and insulting to the struggles of trans people to equate it to being deliberately misgendered.
A fact that you can literally survey in this comment section where there's tons of straight men commenting that they wouldn't be upset/insulted by such a statement, and merely point out the inaccuracy, and I'm willing to bet every penny I own, that the amount of open trans people who would react comparably mildly to being misgendered is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the men commenting here that it wouldn't really upset them that much.
Scheduled sex is itself fine, however most men (at least those worth considering as a long term partner in the first place) derive much, if not most-all, of their enjoyment of sex of the human connection, and feeling the desire, arousal and pleasure of their partner.
Sex with someone who isn't enjoying it, and just passively accepting does not sound appealing at all to me, and I'd be weary around men who are open accepting such an arrangement, because imo it strays into areas of ambiguous consent.
At that point, it's probably similarly enjoyable, and much healthier, if your partner takes of their urges by masturbating. You could potentially even support a future partner in that, by e.g. gifting him solo male sex toys like fleshlights. It shows that you genuinely care about his pleasure, even if you're not into actively participating in sex. This is for example a relationship I (as a cis man) could exist in perfectly happily.
And whilst it's obviously not for everyone, and it can be emotionally challenging, and requires a high degree of emotional maturity and communication, I would also at least consider the potential for an open relationship, where your partners urges could be satisfied without your participation.
I also like how I gave an entire paragraph of the hardships of that trans people face day in and day out, prior to coming out they have to listen to even their closest friends and loved ones seeing them as the wrong gender every day, in every interaction, in every conversation, and you literally just picked out the very first sentence, ignored everything else, and went "Um akshually straight people get this occasionally too, in very different context and with very different conotations, so equatingthem is fine"
Trans people get both deliberately and accidentally misgendered all the fucking time. They're subject to ongoing legal persecution and discrimination, and people barely give half a shit, but someone dares call a straight guy gay, and the internet suddenly needs to come out in full force to defend the rights of the poor, discriminated straight men who have it oh so hard in society, and literally compare it to the plight of a trans person getting misgendered.
Equating misgendering a trans person and calling a straight person gay is like equating calling a recent white south African immigrant a Boer and calling a black south African the N-Word. Just because both are shitty behaviour, doesn't mean they're comparable.
So you think the amount of toxic male culture making men feel invalid for not being masculine enough is comparable the current level of toxicity, discrimination and legal persecution that is making trans people feel invalid ?
I also explicitly, at several occasions and in several comments pointed out that I fully agree that it's toxic and dick move to call straight people gay as some kind of test, so the fact that everyone repeatedly keeps arguing against me with a position that I've literally explicitly agreed with several times, sure seems very indicative of you guys not actually bothering to read or understand my comments.
My sole argument has been not that it's fine to call straight people gay, merely that whilst being toxic, it's not remotely comparable to the level of toxicity of deliberately misgendering a trans person, and it's demeaning and disrespectful towards the very real struggles of trans people to compare the two to each other.
Despite dozens of downvotes and replies, literally not a single person has yet replied to, countered, or even acknowledged this explicitly stated stance of mine. All the replies and downvotes are coming from the POV of me supposedly having said that it's perfectly fine and acceptable to call straight people gay.
In general it can be said that poor people do not have the capital to make upfront investments which become profitable over time. Not even just literal investing, but investing in things like a more fuel efficient car, upgrading the insulation in your house/apartment to save on heating, buying non-perishables in bulk when there's a good deal, buying a dish washer instead of hand washing...
So many things that let you save tons of money in the long run, require relatively large upfront investments, that poor people can't afford. That's a big reason why poverty can be such an insidious vicious loop, that can be extremely hard to escape from.
Two identical households, with identical income could have vastly different financial situations, just based on if their income was previously low, and they weren't able to afford any of these investments, vs. If their income was previously high, having allowed them to previously make these large investments to reduce their long term monthly costs, and secure enough liquidity to be able to continue occasionally making these investments.