[diminoten]

You realize this has real and tangible value to lots of folks, right?

Despite spending the vast majority of my life on the Internet, every single day I am disappointed by how judgmental and incapable of empathy folks are who say things to other people online.

Jesus, put yourself in someone else's shoes just this once. I wouldn't use this service, and I don't know anyone who would, but to say that Invisible Boyfriend is a net loss to humanity requires a level of hubris that, even today, is stunning to find on the Internet.

This is a life/death thing to some LGBT folks, who if outed face physical harm from their own families and friends. Helping someone like that stay in the closet until they can get to safety is a service Invisible Boyfriend adds to this world. Who the fuck are you to say that's not a value-add?

[tych0]

I was right there with you until you brought up the LGBT bit. This service has no real safety benefits for members of the queer community who are in danger. Full stop..

[Neurexin]

Queer person here. This company is clearly riding on the coat tails of the community and doesn't give two shits about us. They are simply marketing themselves this way to tap into a market of closeted people and they decided to play this up to boost revenue.

If they were actually concerned with the safety and wellbeing of LGBT folk they would create something that reflects the needs of communities and it would take into account how complex we are. They would not push something so simplistic on us claiming it's good for us without ever asking themselves if this is true or if their idea is actually a positive contribution to the community. I'm not sorry to say this: LGBT issues are not so simple that they can be solved with such quick fixes because a handful of community members find such fixes momentarily useful. This company might tangentially help a few people but realistically it might also make a lot of scenarios worse. More credibility to closet stories = less people out = less safety due to smaller numbers; more attention drawn to fake SMS relationship = higher chance of forced outing; transaction history on a teenager's bank account = higher chance of forced outing to parents = higher chance of homelessness and/or abuse; only some people can afford $25/mo. = separation of LGB community by class = fragmentation of community; doesn't consider the entire queer community = less solidarity; etc.

Also companies should stop saying LGBT when really they mean "some lesbians & some gays & maybe some bisexuals but not any trans* folk and definitely no one who doesn't have money".

[diminoten]

Poor people can't afford things. So what?

[diminoten]

Not a full stop whatsoever. You don't just get to say I'm wrong without explaining why.

[tych0]

In my mind there are two major ways you could keep a queer person in danger safe: 1. educate the would-be aggressors so their bigotry goes away, or 2. keep them physically safe from harm (guards, locks, etc.). This service does neither of those things.

In fact, maybe in some ways it's worse; some people may _never_ get to a point in their life where it is safe to come out. This is sort of like saying to them "you can't have a real SO because it's not safe; but here, have this fake one to tide you over". Similar to "you can't get married, but you can have this civil union".

[diminoten]

"Your mind" completely ignores non US-cultures, so "your mind" needs to expand a bit.

Pretending like a man in Iran or Russia can come out as gay and be safe isn't going to change the immutable fact that a gay man in either of those two countries is in serious danger simply by being a gay man.

[tych0]

I think that falls under the first category of "educate the would-be aggressors", does it not?

[cbhl]

I can't help but think that the LGBT folks most at risk aren't necessarily going to be over 18 and have ready access to a credit card.

Is there a way to buy an Invisible Boyfriend/Girlfriend as a gift for a friend?