Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
Wendy Fries
Well, regarding the sex in "Cry to Heaven": if you find homosexual sex
distasteful, you should probably avoid all Anne Rice. That's kinda just
the way it is; it is a sexuality that she finds very erotic and
interesting (along with a great many of her fans). If that displeases
you you will find much to dislike about her fictions. Just the way it
is. But I agree with you about the forced nature of the sex in Cry To
Heaven. I stopped reading about the point where some pope or something's
penis was called a weapon or a tool...that was so hokey I just couldn't
read any further...
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
JEFF KING
In article <31C634...@geo.haifa.ac.il> Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> writes:
>From: Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
>Subject: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:46:45 GMT
>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>those days....
You're entitled to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not be
distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily people forget
that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the time--straight and gay--
yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with such
disgust and righteous indignation.
The Thing
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, JEFF KING wrote:
> In article <31C634...@geo.haifa.ac.il> Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
> writes:
> >From: Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
> >Subject: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
> >Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:46:45 GMT
>
>
>
> >God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
> >and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
> >Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
> >so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
> >those days....
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not be
> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily people forget
> that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the time--straight and
> gay--yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they
> respond with such disgust and righteous indignation.
I agree. Imagine THIS scenario:
"It makes me so angry how Anne pushes straight scenes into each and almost
every book she writes..."
Let's face it, folks, the world is NOT suffering from a lack of straight
sex scenes, and if an author is more comfortable writing gay sex (for
whatever reason, including being gay herself), I say, more power to
her!
Ans finally: I've said it before and I'll say it again: No-one is
forcing you to read these books.
+----Catherine Johnson -------------- c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu----+
| "See? I told you it was small." "What is it they say...?" |
| "Yeah, they say that on my planet too." -the Doctor and Grace, _Dr._Who_ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lady
In article <4q4s5l$9...@robin.cqi.com> s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) writes:
>From: s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: 18 Jun 1996 00:10:29 GMT
>Other authors force heterosexual sex into their work, yet no one
>complains about that. What's the dif? Love's love. Pleasure's
>pleasure. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it.
>Stephanie
Exactly. I have difficulty understanding why people have difficulty with the
portrayal of love between two people (or three or four for that matter),
particularly homosexuality - specifically males. Pleasure IS pleasure and love
IS love.
But, as you said, if you don't like it, don't read it.
Lady
Lady
In article <31C634...@geo.haifa.ac.il> Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> writes:
>From: Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
>Subject: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:46:45 GMT
>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>those days....
Anne tells the truth about life in that time. By nature of their surgery,
castrati were usually involved in homosexual relationships. On occasion they
would become involved with women BUT that we frowned upon by society because
they were castrati. Keep in mind this was an age when the Catholic Church (and
this was in Italy) was in charge. Sex for any reason other than procreation
was forbidden. Since castrati had obvious physical features that identified
them, there wasn't much chance of sneaking around.
I think another aspect is that their shared experience would draw the castrati
together. They all underwent the same surgery, loneliness, etc. Thrown
together as they were, love would bloom. They could find comfort in each other
without fear of ridicule.
Lady
BEKKI LYN
In article <31C634...@geo.haifa.ac.il> Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> writes:
>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>those days....
Well, one could say that it just evens out all the heterosexual
scenes that seem so forced in a lot of other books. Weren't
there any homosexual people in history... :-)
Personally, I found the sexual scenes in CTH quite touching and
not forced at all. Just goes to show once again how different
people get different meanings out of different books.
--
Bekki Lyn
Conqueror of 2,7,10,13,12,15,16,18
==============================================================
"Tangled threads seem a stronghold/But illusions can deceive."
+++Fates Warning: The Ivory Gate of Dreams+++
--------------------------------------------------------------
"All acts of love and pleasure are Her rituals."
==============================================================
Memi
S. Olmstead-Dean
Memi (sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il) wrote:
: God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
There might have been, but why? They lived in closed societies of other
"men" like themselves. The chances of an homosexual encounter was rather
more likely than an heterosexual encounter. If harsh realities and/or
anything other than straight vanilla sex offends you, I suggest you look
to another, far more mundane, author.
Maria Tarkka
Lady wrote:
: Stephanie wrote:
: >Other authors force heterosexual sex into their work, yet no one
: >complains about that. What's the dif? Love's love. Pleasure's
: >pleasure. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it.
Very true. So few people seem to read books, especially real literature
anyway. =)
: Exactly. I have difficulty understanding why people have difficulty with the
: portrayal of love between two people (or three or four for that matter),
: particularly homosexuality - specifically males.
Curious. I could never see myself reading about lesbian relationships.
I am certain it has a great deal to do with my orientation - I am the
straightest girl you'll find. But gay love/sex/whatever between males...
I love it! Maybe it is because I love men and like to read about gorgeous
males Anne so beautifully describes.
Normal hetero relationships are perfectly OK in books, but I can't really
explain why I find gay men and their lives more interesting. I real life
as well. I am the type who loves to observe people and I am often
consulted as the psychologist who helpes others to solve their problems.
I love to learn to understand - and just learn on the whole. Maybe I find
gay people so different from myself taht I want to learn to know them to
learn more about humans on the whole. But as I am a woman I can't identify
with lesbians. So I concentrate on gay men. Do I make sense?
Maria - Lessthat
--
FREDDIE MERCURY (QUEEN) * THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA * THE VAMPIRE LESTAT
(ANNE RICE) * LONDON * AYRTON SENNA * STAR TREK TNG * SNOOKER * ENGLAND *
LOUIS (A.R) * SINGING * MARIUS (A.R) * DRAWING PORTRAITS * ARMAND (A.R) *
(THE) ENGLISH * DAMON HILL * ALEXEI URMANOV * CATS * MOZART * WRITING *
JoAnne Soper-Cook
JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
> In article <31C634...@geo.haifa.ac.il> Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> writes:
>>From: Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
>>Subject: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:46:45 GMT
>
>
>
>>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>>those days....
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not be
> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily people forget
> that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the time--straight and gay--
> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with such
> disgust and righteous indignation.
BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
--
"Yes, he is very dead. It is an unfortunate outcome to our enterprise, but
likely to be a thing you will in time forget. Give it no more thought."
From *The Dark Night of the Soul* (c)J. Soper-Cook, 1996
Natalie Melanson
Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> wrote:
>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>those days....
Yes - have you seen Farinelli? It's a wonderful film based on the true
story of Farinelli. It was nominated for an academy award for best
foreign film last year. It's wonderfully sumptuous, sensuous, I just
loved it! And he was "quite" heterosexual.
Natalie
Wendy Fries
Maria, I know exactly what you mean about being interested in gay men,
their sex/lifestyles. It doesn't have to make sense really, but surely
you've noticed that *many many* women share your interested in sex
between two men? I think it's just because as *generally* straight
women, we find a double dose of men even sexier than one. It goes the
same for many men, they very much are attracted to the idea of two women
together. Don't know why it is, just know it is. And I also laugh when
people bitch and moan about homosexuality being "forced" on them. All I
can say is grow up children; heterosex is a whole lot more than
forced down our throats--it's shoved, crammed and pounded down. And
usually in a degraded form like a bimbo begging some macho "I just offed
the bad guy" idiot to spread her. So *Wendy raises a glass* long live
a.b.a-r!!! Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires.
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
S. A. Buday
On 18 Jun 1996, Maria Tarkka wrote:
> Curious. I could never see myself reading about lesbian relationships.
> I am certain it has a great deal to do with my orientation - I am the
> straightest girl you'll find. But gay love/sex/whatever between males...
> I love it! Maybe it is because I love men and like to read about gorgeous
> males Anne so beautifully describes.
The gay scenes written in Anne Rice novels and the like, are written
largely for a heterosexual female audience. While mainstream books that
contain lesbian relationships, are written for male audiences. If you go
to a lesbian/gay section of a bookstore and pick up a book, you'll find
that the sex written for a homosexual audience, is very different.
Sounds odd, but it may account for the reason you don't like reading it...
<shrug>
> But as I am a woman I can't identify with lesbians. So I concentrate on
> gay men. Do I make sense?
> Maria - Lessthat
Lesbian woman get a bad wrap 'cause of the militant front that gets all
the hype. It's unfortunate because the majority are not that way.
Rita May Brown is a GREAT author to read if you want to see life as it
really is in lesbian relationships. _Ruby Fruit Jungle_ is a good book to
start.
-Stephanie- Mrs. Brat Queen-Wicked One
--
"Ye must conquer ALL!" --All
The Monkey House awaits! http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/2594/
Lady
In article <Pine.A32.3.90.96...@unix1.cc.ysu.edu> "S. A. Buday" <s016...@cc.ysu.edu> writes:
>From: "S. A. Buday" <s016...@cc.ysu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:07:31 -0400 (EDT)
>Lesbian woman get a bad wrap 'cause of the militant front that gets all
>the hype. It's unfortunate because the majority are not that way.
>Rita May Brown is a GREAT author to read if you want to see life as it
>really is in lesbian relationships. _Ruby Fruit Jungle_ is a good book to
>start.
>-Stephanie- Mrs. Brat Queen-Wicked One
You know, I am still amazed at these discussions. I have many friends in the
gay and lesbian communities. I have straight friends who can't understand my
friendships. They feel I should be "afraid" my lesbian friends will put the
make on me. They feel I should be afraid my gay friends will give me AIDS - no
one said they were very educated about HIV.
Each and everyone of us approaches our sexuality differently. We all like
different things - some are visual, some tactile, some auditory, etc. But the
bottom line is, be we straight, gay or lesbian, we want some to love and who
will love us. We want a committed relationship filled with love and trust. The
gender of who we love has nothing to do with the love.
I'm on a philosophical bent today.
Lady
S. A. Buday
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, S. A. Buday wrote:
> Lesbian woman get a bad wrap 'cause of the militant front that gets all
> the hype. It's unfortunate because the majority are not that way.
> Rita May Brown is a GREAT author to read if you want to see life as it
> really is in lesbian relationships. _Ruby Fruit Jungle_ is a good book to
> start.
I need to make a few corrections.
It's Rita Mae Brown (with an "e") and "Rubyfruit" is one word. Sorry
about that, I was thinking off the top of my head when I wrote that.
And another good book of her's to try is _In Her Day_
-Stephanie- Mrs. Brat Queen-Wicked One
Fred McCall
Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> wrote:
:God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
:and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
:Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
:so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
:those days....
Actually, I would expect that to be quite unlikely. Keep in mind what
we're talking about here. These are young boys, taken prior to
puberty, castrated (which would tend to make SOME kind of sexual
impact later in life, I would think!), and then placed together with
only other young boys just like them to be subjected to rigorous
discipline (because you don't get a great singer just by cutting
someone's dick off).
Given the prevalence of homosexual experimentation in 'closed',
single-sex schools, I would be quite surprised to find a castrati who
had sexual interests at all who was NOT primarily homosexual. Of
course, given the hormonal imbalances, I have to sort of wonder at the
whole idea of a castrati with an 'active' sex life, but that's
something else again.
Sorry, but this seems to be one place where Anne's penchant for
including gay male sex seems to fit. This makes it no less
distasteful, but that's another issue. Of course, I find the idea of
emasculation just a bit 'distasteful', too.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Diane Wilson
In article <4q6e14$f...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) writes:
|> BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
Ummm, being a many-gendered person myself.....
When I read Prism of the Night, it was pretty clear that Anne is
transgendered--I seem to remember that the book quotes her directly on
that. I'm sure that at some levels, she understands gay male sex better
than she understands heterosexual sex, even when she is the woman involved.
It's not that being transgendered magically precludes bigotry--far from
it--but it can certainly lead to finding one's self *way* outside the
mainstream of both gender and sexuality. It can be isolating, or it can
be freeing.
So I don't find it particularly surprising that she explores a lot of
alternate sexualities, not just homosexuality but also BDSM and anything
else she can find. It also puts in perspective her (ouch!) difficulties
in creating whole and believable women characters.
And for anyone who can't deal with it, there's always Danielle Steele.
--
Diane Wilson, gender miscreant |
dia...@ix.netcom.com | The deadliest bullshit is odorless and
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | transparent.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ | --Bruce Sterling
Lisa DaFoe
I find this whole discussion to be extremely interesting. Before I got
on the net and discovered slash fiction and such, I thought I was
strange because I enjoyed reading about two men making love. Now I find
that many women do and I don't feel so weird now. I quite enjoy a
well-written love scene between two men and Cry to Heaven is my favorite
non-vampire Anne Rice book.
long live
> a.b.a-r!!! Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires.
> All right Wendy! I nominate this for our group motto! Hey Wendy, do you
mind if I put this in my signature?
--
Lisa lda...@worldnet.att.net
DFW International Mulder/Scully 96
XAngst Anonymous Trust No One But Them!
Another Bleepin' X-Phile
The Thing
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
> Actually, I would expect that to be quite unlikely. Keep in mind what
> we're talking about here. These are young boys, taken prior to
> puberty, castrated (which would tend to make SOME kind of sexual
> impact later in life, I would think!), and then placed together with
> only other young boys just like them to be subjected to rigorous
> discipline (because you don't get a great singer just by cutting
> someone's dick off).
Castration doesn't involve cutting off a guy's dick- just his testicles.
(I don't mean "just" to minimize it, just to point out that it's not all
the equipment, just part of it).
> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
+----Catherine Johnson -------------- c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu----+
Wendy Fries
Lisa asked:
long live
> a.b.a-r!!! Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires.
> All right Wendy! I nominate this for our group motto! Hey Wendy, do you
mind if I put this in my signature?
I don't mind at all Lisa, I think it would be hysterical. Maybe I'll put
it in my sig too. And as for using it as the group motto, it works, it
*does* work! I say we go for it.
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
rg...@odyssee.net
>>
>> >God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>> >and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>> >Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>> >so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>> >those days....
I cannot understand why some people find something "distasteful" just
because it is not from their point of view. (i.e. hetrosexual). As to
the "gay scenes into each and almost every book she writes" it is
quite disturbing that someone could possibly be not offended by
Vampires who kill quite violently, but find it distasteful if two of
these vampires declare their love for each other. ( I'm not knocking
the violence, just illustrating a point...I LOVED the Vampire
Chronicles)
As for Cry to Heaven (I haven't read it yet, but now I am going to
rush out tomorrow and get it...thanx for the reccomendation) I'm sure
that there were some hetrosexual castrati, but I guess that is not
what Cry to Heaven was about was it? You couldn't have found it THAT
distastful, afterall you are finishing the book.
One final note to the person who originated this thread... it would be
quite boring if all characters, in all books were modeled after Mr.
or Mrs. Joe Smith....or even worse...modeled after you!!!!!
Ryan
Prue
On Jun 19, 1996 04:44:28 in article <Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven>,
I have read The Mummy and all of the VC(I'm reading MTD now).I never really
paid that much attention to the "gay scenes" just like the hetero scenes
IMO they always just flowed with the story.
Brian
Lady
In article <4q8ari$h...@news3.cts.com> myth...@sd.cts.com (Wendy Fries) writes:
>From: myth...@sd.cts.com (Wendy Fries)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: 19 Jun 1996 07:39:30 GMT
>Lisa asked:
>Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Works for me.
WWAWMAHV
Lady
Jason Dinger
You are quite right.
Fred McCall
The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
:On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
:
:> Actually, I would expect that to be quite unlikely. Keep in mind what
:> we're talking about here. These are young boys, taken prior to
:> puberty, castrated (which would tend to make SOME kind of sexual
:> impact later in life, I would think!), and then placed together with
:> only other young boys just like them to be subjected to rigorous
:> discipline (because you don't get a great singer just by cutting
:> someone's dick off).
:
:Castration doesn't involve cutting off a guy's dick- just his testicles.
:(I don't mean "just" to minimize it, just to point out that it's not all
:the equipment, just part of it).
I know that. It was what is known as a 'hyperbolic colloquilism', I
guess. After all, the penis has nothing to do with hormone
production, which is what you're trying to prevent with castration.
Nightfall
mt5...@vuokko.uta.fi (Maria Tarkka) wrote:
>Curious. I could never see myself reading about lesbian relationships.
>I am certain it has a great deal to do with my orientation - I am the
>straightest girl you'll find. But gay love/sex/whatever between males...
>I love it! Maybe it is because I love men and like to read about gorgeous
>males Anne so beautifully describes.
You mean there are others out there like me???
>Normal hetero relationships are perfectly OK in books, but I can't really
>explain why I find gay men and their lives more interesting.
Neither can I. I've tried explaining it to others, to the many people
who give me queer looks and distasteful grimaces, but I don't really
understand it myself!
> I real life
>as well. I am the type who loves to observe people and I am often
>consulted as the psychologist who helpes others to solve their problems.
>I love to learn to understand - and just learn on the whole. Maybe I find
>gay people so different from myself taht I want to learn to know them to
>learn more about humans on the whole. But as I am a woman I can't identify
>with lesbians. So I concentrate on gay men. Do I make sense?
You probably make the most sense to me, because you sound like a twin.
I've read various forms of homosexual material, and I'm always
attracted to the men. The lesbians don't turn me off, it's just that
there is no attraction there for me at all. I don't find lesbians at
all fascinating, and I've never been able to account for this.
I've always found hetersexuals dull in comparison. As Wendy said, we
in this culture have had it "forced, shoved, crammed, and pounded down
our throats", and I'm so bloody sick and tired of it that I don't even
want to see it anymore. So you and I are in love with what's
different---believe me, I understand.
Debbie
*Borrowing Wendy's great motto*
WWAWMAHV
Fred McCall
la...@azstarnet.com (Lady) wrote:
:Exactly. I have difficulty understanding why people have difficulty with the
:portrayal of love between two people (or three or four for that matter),
:particularly homosexuality - specifically males.
Then I would suggest that you are in the wrong field of study.
:But, as you said, if you don't like it, don't read it.
Pity you didn't take your own advice in preference to launching your
long tirade in that plethora of notes, whining about my choice of
outrageous and unlikely charge in my remarks to Rachel.
Fred McCall
bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
:
:JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
:
:> You're entitled to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not be
:> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily people forget
:> that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the time--straight and gay--
Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
pejorative, sense of the word
:> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with such
:> disgust and righteous indignation.
Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
:BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
kiss my wife. Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
The Thing
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
> bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
>
> : :JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
> :> You're entitled
> :> to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not
> :> be
> :> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily
> :> people forget that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the
> :> time--straight and gay--
>
> Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
> And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
> pejorative, sense of the word
How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us. Who says
bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
than EITHER being straight or gay?
> :> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with
> :> such disgust and righteous indignation.
>
> Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
> is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
Why?
> :BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
>
> But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
> have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
But straight sex is shoved in our faces EVRY day. Watch tv. Go see a
movie. Read a book. All of them shove straight sex at the
watcher/reader. Why is that ok? Men mentioning wives and girlfreinds at
the office, saying you're going out with a member of the opposite sex.
Holding your MOTOS's hand. All of these reinforce the idea of straight
sex. That's not "shoving it in our faces"?
> Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
> kiss my wife.
Wife = straight sex. You're shoving your sexuality at us JUST BY SAYING
THAT, Fred. It's just that it's considered so "normal" that you probably
don't even realize it.
> Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to disgust as if it
> is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
Have you ever stopped to examine WHY it disgusts you? Just think about
it. And don't say "cuz it's sick/disgusting/ect." Really THINK about it.
> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
+----Catherine Johnson -------------- c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu----+
The Thing
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
> The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> :On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
> :
> :> Actually, I would expect that to be quite unlikely. Keep in mind what
> :> we're talking about here. These are young boys, taken prior to
> :> puberty, castrated (which would tend to make SOME kind of sexual
> :> impact later in life, I would think!), and then placed together with
> :> only other young boys just like them to be subjected to rigorous
> :> discipline (because you don't get a great singer just by cutting
> :> someone's dick off).
> :
> :Castration doesn't involve cutting off a guy's dick- just his testicles.
> :(I don't mean "just" to minimize it, just to point out that it's not all
> :the equipment, just part of it).
>
> I know that. It was what is known as a 'hyperbolic colloquilism', I
> guess. After all, the penis has nothing to do with hormone
> production, which is what you're trying to prevent with castration.
Allrightythen. But it's a common misconception that castration DOES
involve cutting off the penis, and I wasn't sure if you knew that or not.
Omega Man
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:13:18 -0700, you wrote:
{On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
{> bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
(snip)
{> :> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they
respond with
{> :> such disgust and righteous indignation.
{>
{> Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each
other
{> is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
etc. . . . . . . . . .
**********
A most respectful _request_:
Would you mind taking this discussion to e-mail ? I mean, this is a
_great_ topic of debate and I normally would probably engage in the
discussion.
But, the topic, as it stands, has nothing to do with Anne Rice. If
you could relate your discussion to Anne's stance on homosexuality,
then I think it would have relevance and importance to newsgroup as a
whole.
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
Omega Man
JEFF KING
In article <31c93dd3....@news.onramp.net> f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) writes:
>From: f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
>:
>:JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
>:
>:> You're entitled to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not be
>:> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily people forget
>:> that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the time--straight and gay--
>Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
>And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
>pejorative, sense of the word
Fine.
>:> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with such
>:> disgust and righteous indignation.
>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
Did I use the word "homophobia"? I don't think so. It is etymologically
incorrect, but we're stuck with it until something better comes along. And the
"disgust" that you describe may be a standard reaction for many people, but
that is only because it has been a sociologically conditioned response. Most
of us have been trained to feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's right.
I stand by what I said. Somebody responded with a rather knee-jerk reaction to
the sexual content. This woman may not have been aware of the homoerotic
content of Anne Rice's work beforehand, but I would suggest she find something
else to read if this bothers her, since this is something that can be found in
much of her work.
>:BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
>But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
>have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
If you have a negative opinion about homosexuality, you might wish to consider
where you express it, though. I think this newsgroup is an accepting, open
place, and making blanket statements about how homosexuality disgusts you
isn't a particularly wise thing to do.
>Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
>kiss my wife.
Since your heterosexuality enjoys such "approval", your flaunting it by
kissing your opposite-gender partner probably would scarcely raise an eyebrow.
Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
>disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
No, but it is about time certain straight people start giving some serious
thought to how much THEIR sexuality is inflicted upon everyone, and how a
certain segment of the society may feel about THAT. And maybe you should
consider why this "gay sex" thing disgusts you. What is it to you, anyhow?
JoAnne Soper-Cook
Jeff, I think you might want to check the author of the posting before you
decide to defame my character all over the Net. The post that you quoted
is not, I repeat *not* mine...my only comment is "It's the 90s, love is a
many-gendered thing" The rest of it was posted by somebody else--who, I'm
not certain, but it's not me.
I wish, instead of flaming me all to hell for something I didn't even
write, you'd check first. And for the record Jeff, I'm bisexual. So
homophobia is the *last* thing you'd find from me--in addition, I write a
lot of fiction--for a living--that has strong homoerotic elements.
The next time you decide to call me down, check the posting first. I
didn't write what you claim I did, and I really do *not* appreciate being
defamed in this manner for it. If you want to flame somebody, flame the
person who wrote the message. Not me. I didn't write it. And I'd
appreciate a little consideration the next time you decide to fly into
righteous indignation. I certainly have more consideration for the people
who post here than you seem to, and that includes not "quoting" me as
having said the things you included here, when I obviously did not.
Thanks a bunch, Jeff.
--
"I die when no mortals love me...but how could you not love me? Am I not
beauty itself?" [Lilith, from "The Dark Night of the Soul" (C) 1996,
JoAnne Soper-Cook]
RubyEuropa
jmk...@library.ucla.edu (JEFF KING) saideth:
>If you have a negative opinion about homosexuality, you might wish to consider
>where you express it, though. I think this newsgroup is an accepting, open
>place, and making blanket statements about how homosexuality disgusts you
>isn't a particularly wise thing to do.
Hmm.. but if this is an open and accepting place, then shouldn't one
also have the freedom to voice their opinion if they do find it
disgusting? Shouldn't it work both ways?
>certain segment of the society may feel about THAT. And maybe you should
>consider why this "gay sex" thing disgusts you. What is it to you, anyhow?
Hmm... could it be that "gay sex" disgusts Fred as much as "straight
sex" offends some homosexuals? And that maybe there is nothing wrong
with either? An old friend of mine is gay and he used to crack me up
years ago because whenever he saw "straight" couples holding hands or
kissing, he'd mutter, sincerely, "that's disgusting" :)
Ruby
S. Olmstead-Dean
The Thing (c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu) wrote:
: How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
: where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us. Who says
: bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
: control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
: than EITHER being straight or gay?
I think that is a good question. And frankly, anyone who calls
homosexuality "abnormal" doesn't keep up with current literature on
what's "normal." Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic &
Statistica Manual of mental disorders) some time ago, and that book is
published by the American Psychiatric Association, which is *not* the
most progressive organization in the world.
In general, if one is going to make a strong claim, one should be able to
abck it up with research. :)
Stephanie Olmstead-Dean
"Straight, but not narrow"
Wendamatica
Ruby asked:
> Hmm.. but if this is an open and accepting place, then shouldn't one
> also have the freedom to voice their opinion if they do find it
Ruby, I think, perhaps the difference lies in this example:
A) Black skin is disgusting
B) I don't find black skin sexually appealing
One is emotional and an opinion and it uses words associated strongly
with negativity. The other is factual, non-emotional. One would be
called prejudice, the other a preference. That's what it seems to come
down to: perhaps you don't like homosexual sex, but do you mistreat gays
because of it? Do you hate them? It's the latter feeling that I think we
have no place for in the group or, pretty much, on the planet.
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
GADDFashionBodyguard's Fearless Leader Heikkinen-Lee-Bloomer-Elfling-Smith
A.B.A-R: Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires
Nightfall
>Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il> wrote:
>>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>>those days....
aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca (Natalie Melanson) wrote:
>Yes - have you seen Farinelli? It's a wonderful film based on the true
>story of Farinelli. It was nominated for an academy award for best
>foreign film last year. It's wonderfully sumptuous, sensuous, I just
>loved it! And he was "quite" heterosexual.
Farinelli, ahhh, pure bliss. I struggled for 4 months to get hold of
that film. You're descriptions of it are so well chosen--I can't
describe it any better than that. All you Tonio fans out there, get
off your hineys and see this movie!!!
Stefano Dionisi embodied not only Farinelli, but it was easy to
associate him with Anne's Tonio. Quite the beautiful man...
Only one thing was missing, and that was the homosexual theme. I
would like to have seen a bit of that, or at least some bisexual
activity. With the castrati, homosexuality was prevalent, and
understandably so, what with the way these boys were brought up.
I can also understand, though, why this might not have been the
situation with Farinelli.
Farinelli was of the upper class, and I don't really know if he spent
much time with other boys like him in the Academys. He grew up with
his father and brother, and was personally instructed by a famous
castrato teacher, Popora. But I wish I had been a fly on the
apartment wall of King Philip V of Spain, when Farinelli sang the same
four arias to him every night for ten years. Especially after his
first exclusive performance for Philip, who afterwards "loaded him
with compliments and caresses". :}
Debbie
Elizabeth L Steckling
Maybe I'm dead wrong (I very well could be), but I think Fred meant
"normal" in the sense of what society portrays as normal, not necessarily
as his own personal belief.
Elizabeth
***********************************
* What your secret heart desires-*
* It draws to it *
* =) *
*********************************** *
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, The Thing wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
>
> > bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
> >
> > : :JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
> > :> You're entitled
> > :> to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not
> > :> be
> > :> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily
> > :> people forget that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the
> > :> time--straight and gay--
> >
> > Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
> > And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
> > pejorative, sense of the word
>
> How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
> where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us. Who says
> bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
> control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
> than EITHER being straight or gay?
>
> > :> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with
> > :> such disgust and righteous indignation.
> >
> > Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
> > is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
>
> Why?
>
> > :BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
> >
> > But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
> > have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
>
> But straight sex is shoved in our faces EVRY day. Watch tv. Go see a
> movie. Read a book. All of them shove straight sex at the
> watcher/reader. Why is that ok? Men mentioning wives and girlfreinds at
> the office, saying you're going out with a member of the opposite sex.
> Holding your MOTOS's hand. All of these reinforce the idea of straight
> sex. That's not "shoving it in our faces"?
>
> > Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
> > kiss my wife.
>
> Wife = straight sex. You're shoving your sexuality at us JUST BY SAYING
> THAT, Fred. It's just that it's considered so "normal" that you probably
> don't even realize it.
>
> > Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to disgust as if it
> > is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
>
> Have you ever stopped to examine WHY it disgusts you? Just think about
> it. And don't say "cuz it's sick/disgusting/ect." Really THINK about it.
>
rg...@odyssee.net
f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) wrote:
>Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
>And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
>pejorative, sense of the word
A better choice of words would be "more common"
>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
I don't think that "disgust" with homosexuality is a "normal"
hetrosexual response. "Indifference" would be a "normal" response.
I as homosexual am far from "disgusted" by the thought of men and
women together or the thought of two women together...it just doesn't
affect my life....but I don't think it is normal to be disgusted by
something that doesn't appeal to you.
As for the " silly, invented words like 'homophobia'". Aside from the
fact that all words in any language are "invented" at some point or
another, there is obviously a need for such a word considering that
there are people who are disgusted and morally outraged by something
that doesn't affect them.
>But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
>have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
>Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
>kiss my wife. Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
>disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
I don't think disgust is a right. You certainly have the right to
disagree with homosexuality, but disgust is not basic human right.
The problem with disgust is that too often (not saying this is the
case with you) disgust is acted out in the form of discrimination.
Another reason for that "silly, invented word"
What is wrong with tolerance instead of disgust?
Ryan
Melissa D. Katz
In article <4qcrgd$s...@robin.cqi.com>, s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
> The Thing (c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu) wrote:
> : How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
> : where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us. Who says
> : bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
> : control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
> : than EITHER being straight or gay?
>
> I think that is a good question. And frankly, anyone who calls
> homosexuality "abnormal" doesn't keep up with current literature on
> what's "normal." Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic &
> Statistica Manual of mental disorders) some time ago, and that book is
> published by the American Psychiatric Association, which is *not* the
> most progressive organization in the world.
>
> In general, if one is going to make a strong claim, one should be able to
> abck it up with research. :)
>
> Stephanie Olmstead-Dean
> "Straight, but not narrow"
As an aside, a suggested research topic in my psychopathology class
syllabus was homosexuality. As a pathological behavior!!
How are Anne's sex scenes forced down anyone's throat? The sex in Cry to
Heaven wasn't my particular preference, so I didn't read it with as much
abandon as her other scenarios. And went on with my life!!
--
"...you can't help respecting anybody who can spell
TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right. There
are days when spelling TUESDAY simply doesn't count."
-Rabbit
Frank Yao
Fred McCall <f...@onramp.net> wrote:
>Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
>And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
>pejorative, sense of the word
analytical sense? Does this have something to do with reproduction,
or did you have something completely different in mind?
>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
But where does that disgust come from, and if you (in general) are
disgusted with male-male sex, why are you reading Anne Rice? We've
had our long discussions about the homoeroticism in Anne Rice, exxcept
maybe the Mayfair Chronicles, where it's jsut incest.
However, I think that there has to be a distinction made here. For a
heterosexual male to be disgusted at the idea of male-male sex is not
uncommon. That's certainly not homophobia. It is only when said male
applies certain stereotypes to the act (one of the most common is that
it's just lust, no love involved) that it can be better clarified
homophobia. I know that by pure definition, that's not true, but it
makes more sense that way. Also, there has to be a distinction
between homosexual sex, and homosexual love. I am willing to guess
that Fred has no problems with either, but doesn't want to read about
the former (because it's disgusting to him). He has said anything
about wanting to take away the rights of gay people, or many of the
things that truly homophobic people would do. Sounds like he is
taking the advice that if you don't like it, you don't have to
watch/listen/read it. Sounds like some people are too reactionary in
their defense of the homosexual lifestyle. Realize that it's not for
everyone, please.
>Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
>disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
Political correctness?
- frank
--
****** Frank Yao, fy...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca ***************************
* In the name of the Father, the Skeptic, and the Son, I have just *
* one more ... stupid question - Alanis Morrissette *
****************************** http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~fyao ******
RubyEuropa
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> saideth:
>Ruby, I think, perhaps the difference lies in this example:
> A) Black skin is disgusting
> B) I don't find black skin sexually appealing
And perhaps it's a matter of semantics. You say toMAto; I say toMAHto.
Two people could use both of your above phrases and mean the same
thing. Doesn't mean it's interpreted that way, obviously, but it COULD
be merely a matter of how someone expresses himself.
>with negativity. The other is factual, non-emotional. One would be
>called prejudice, the other a preference.
Why can't both be seen as preferential rather than prejudicial?
>down to: perhaps you don't like homosexual sex, but do you mistreat gays
>because of it?
You've lost me. Who here said they mistreat gays? Did I miss a thread?
> Do you hate them? It's the latter feeling that I think we
>have no place for in the group or, pretty much, on the planet.
I don't think "hate" has a place anywhere and frankly, it makes me
sad. But I also don't want to tell another what they should think or
feel anymore than I'd want them to tell me what I should think or
feel.
Ruby
Frank Yao
JEFF KING <jmk...@library.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
>>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
>>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
>>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
[ .. snip about 'homophobia' .. ]
>And the
>"disgust" that you describe may be a standard reaction for many people, but
>that is only because it has been a sociologically conditioned response. Most
>of us have been trained to feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Well, here's the thing, 'right' and 'normal' aren't the same thing.
And 'right' is usually relative. However, while I don't think disgust
is the right word for how I would feel, I don't exactly go out of my
way to look for scenes of male-male sex. (If it's there, fine. If
not, okay.) But I don't thin it's been conditioned into me, and I
still don't know how I would react if I actually saw it either in a
movie or in RL. ANd yet, I still strongly defend gay rights.
>I stand by what I said. Somebody responded with a rather knee-jerk reaction
>to the sexual content. This woman may not have been aware of the homoerotic
>content of Anne Rice's work beforehand,
Oh, now that's interesting. Some women find it disgusting too. Maybe
she feels the scene was too forced, like it wasn't necessary to be
there to make the story work, like some of the sex scenes in TWH,
where Rowan makes comments like, "Make it like rape!" when making sex
with Lasher.
ANyways, I would say that your reaction to Fred's reaction is a bit
knee-jerk as well.
>If you have a negative opinion about homosexuality,you might wish to consider
>where you express it, though. I think this newsgroup is an accepting, open
>place, and making blanket statements about how homosexuality disgusts you
>isn't a particularly wise thing to do.
Blanket statements? He feels that male-male sex is disgusting to him.
How is that a blanket statement? He didn't say anything about
homosexual love, nor did he say that anyone should follow his opinion.
You see, to be open and accepting means you allow people with
differing opinions from you to speak.
>>Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
>>kiss my wife.
>
>Since your heterosexuality enjoys such "approval", your flaunting it by
>kissing your opposite-gender partne probably would scarcely raise an eyebrow.
That's not the point. He is merely saying that just as he has a right
to be disgusted by homosexual sex, others have a right to be disgusted
by heterosexual sex.
>No, but it is about time certain straight people start giving some serious
>thought to how much THEIR sexuality is inflicted upon everyone, and how a
>certain segment of the society may feel about THAT. And maybe you should
>consider why this "gay sex" thing disgusts you. What is it to you, anyhow?
I think that heterosexuality is inflicted (what kinda word is that in
this sense) upon society, yes, but it just happens that at least 90%
of the population is that way, and so you would expect that to happen.
The only place where a majority's views were some way inflicted upon
the minority was in South Africa. That's what you get, especially in
a democratic society. (That's why democracy has it's pit falls.)
And personally, I don't think it's anything to him (but he can speak
for himself). He was merely making a comment, something that free
speech allows for.
S. Olmstead-Dean
Melissa D. Katz (m...@u.arizona.edu) wrote:
: As an aside, a suggested research topic in my psychopathology class
: syllabus was homosexuality. As a pathological behavior!!
How long ago?
Homsexuality was removed from the DSM several years ago.
: How are Anne's sex scenes forced down anyone's throat? The sex in Cry to
: Heaven wasn't my particular preference, so I didn't read it with as much
: abandon as her other scenarios. And went on with my life!!
I have to admit that my attitude is, and probably always will be, that
pleasure between two consenting individuals is the same, no matter what
the gender mix. Since I'm not a gay male, the feelings involved are
beyond me (or at least, I can only guestimate), but hey, if it gives
someone joy, so much the better. I didn't think the sex was forced down
anyone's throat, because it just seemed like part of the whole scenario.
But then, perhaps it's all a matter of perspective.
Stephanie
Frank Yao
The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
>
>How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
>where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us. Who says
>bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
>control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
>than EITHER being straight or gay?
'Normal' is a relative term. It's normal for some groups of people to
practice cannibalism. 'Normal' is determined by the group of people
making the judgment, and hence, it will always reflect their biases.
So, the answer to your question is that being bi is not 'normal'
(consciously) to a large portion of the North AMerican public, even if
studies show that most people are bi in varying degrees.
However, the tendency to equate 'normal' with 'moral' is totally
wrong. There are many things that are 'abnormal', but are probably at
best 'neutral' from a ethical standpoint. I would argue that
homosexuality falls into that category, just as heterosexual and
bisexuality. The imposing of morality onto something that occurs in
nature is similar to imposing a morality on someone's race. It just
is. Of course, there are people at both extremes of the scale.
>> Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
>> is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
>
>Why?
Because the judgment if made from the POV of the heterosexual males.
Again, 'digust' doesn't mean 'feel that homosexuality is immoral'. We
might be disgusted to watch a cow getting slaughter at the
slughterhouse, but most of us are familiar with the idea, and still
have no problem eating the steak.
>But straight sex is shoved in our faces EVRY day. Watch tv. Go see a
>movie. Read a book. All of them shove straight sex at the
>watcher/reader. Why is that ok?
If you don't like it don't watch it. As for you question, it is 'ok'
because a large enough majority of North Americans think it is 'ok'.
I put that in quotes because it doesn't mean they are right.
>Men mentioning wives and girlfreinds at
>the office, saying you're going out with a member of the opposite sex.
>Holding your MOTOS's hand. All of these reinforce the idea of straight
>sex. That's not "shoving it in our faces"?
I don't see that as shoving it in your face. That's a bit too
extreme, and with at least 90% of the population not gay, you would be
hard pressed to find people not taking about their wives and gfs, as
opposed to their gay partners.
>Wife = straight sex. You're shoving your sexuality at us JUST BY SAYING
>THAT, Fred. It's just that it's considered so "normal" that you probably
>don't even realize it.
He was using it as an example of straight sex. The context of that
statement is that everyone else has a right to be disgusted with
straight sex, just as he is disgusted with gay sex. If that was a
'shove in the face', it was to make a point.
I know I'm not getting brownie points with most of you, but I think
that the threat is not from people who think that gay sex is
disgusting, but from people who think it is immoral, or people who
want to label the whole lifestyle as immoral, and use that to take
away people's rights.
Casey
>God, It sometimes makes me so angry how Anne pushes gay scenes into each
>and almost every book she writes. I'm about to finish her "Cry to
>Heaven" which is a capital book but the sex there is so distasteful and
>so forced to the theme. Weren't there any hetrosexual castrati's in
>those days....
Hi all,
Memi ... I respect your opinion and hope you resprct mine too. Your
question about castrati's being "straight" in those days -- well, Anne has
once again done a great job on doing her research. After ready CTH I went
down to the library I read up on all I could about castrati's and the
Catholic church of the time, etc. And Anne hit the nail on the head. It
was perfectly acceptable in those times for the castrati to have sex with
either sex, because they were considered to be "sexless". And so of
course, the castrati, when freed of guilt about their sexual actions, were
free to find any pleasure available, both in the arms of men and women,
just as Guido and Tonio did.
By the way, the question of sex aside ... I *loved* CTH and felt it was
one of the most perfectly imagined and realized books I've ever read. I
feel that if it was done as a movie in capable hands (perhaps Francis Ford
Coppala directing) it would be a breath-taking masterpiece.
My thoughts ... take this as you will.
Cheers!!
=)
-Casey (dix...@tenet.edu)
visit me on the WWW: http://users.aol.com/kaze4/index.html
*don't forget to sign my guestbook when you drop by!!!"
====================================================================
"If I shed a tear, I won't cage it ... If I feel a rage, I won't
deny it... I won't fear love."
-Sarah McLachlan; 'Fumbling Towards Ecstasy'
====================================================================
"Censorship, like revolution, often devours its own children"
-Vincent Blasi
====================================================================
RubyEuropa
fy...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao) saideth:
>However, I think that there has to be a distinction made here. For a
>heterosexual male to be disgusted at the idea of male-male sex is not
>uncommon. That's certainly not homophobia.
Amen. I get so weary of seeing people automatically labeled homophobic
merely because they find same-sex sex unappealing or "disgusting." The
word is flung about too rashly.
Ruby
Wendamatica
Ruby, I agree that I could say disgust and you could say dislike and we
both mean the same thing. I guess I'm going for the conventional
meanings and generally disgust is a hate word. I was not ever trying to
imply that you or anyone was *saying* hate, I was trying to say why many
people got a little upset over the use of the word.
> I don't think "hate" has a place anywhere and frankly, it makes me
> sad. But I also don't want to tell another what they should think or
> feel anymore than I'd want them to tell me what I should think or
> feel.
Agreed again. It seems the whole thrust of this thread was mostly people
trying to encourage others *not* to hate. Seems most of us don't and
many of us go to the other extreme regarding homosexuality: more, more!
Yours in a prurient nature,
Wendy
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
ma...@combase.com
s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
>Stephanie
Although there is no mention of it in this letter, I am responding
more the the post that are considering the sex in Cry To Heaven
distasteful.
I find it ironic that the discussion is centering around "normal "
sex. HELLO! we are talking about castrated males here! I am
currently reading a cry to heaven and I see the struggles of Tonio to
find what is normal for himself, which he refers to as a "monster."
I would think that anyone who suffers any discomfort in the sex scenes
would be infinitely more repulsed by the fact that not only are they
castrated, but castrated against their will.
My boyfriend read a cry to heaven and I consider him pretty
"homophobic" , and he made no mention of the sex scenes but was very
disturbed by the whole idea of castrating a person, just to preserve a
voice. (not that any reason for it would appeal to him)
Just remember, perspective is everything. I feel for the characters
that have to carve a life out of what was carved out of them.
By the way, I responded to Stephanies post because it was one of the
more rational well-thought out ones.
Lisa
Lady
In article <jmking.23...@library.ucla.edu> jmk...@library.ucla.edu (JEFF KING) writes:
>From: jmk...@library.ucla.edu (JEFF KING)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>If you have a negative opinion about homosexuality, you might wish to consider
>where you express it, though. I think this newsgroup is an accepting, open
>place, and making blanket statements about how homosexuality disgusts you
>isn't a particularly wise thing to do.
Excellent post, Jeff.
Lady
Lady
In article <4qdn4b$e...@news.istar.ca> ni...@istar.ca (Nightfall) writes:
>From: ni...@istar.ca (Nightfall)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Farinelli, ahhh, pure bliss. I struggled for 4 months to get hold of
>that film. You're descriptions of it are so well chosen--I can't
>describe it any better than that. All you Tonio fans out there, get
Where and how did you finally get hold of it? I'd love to see it.
Lady
Lady
In article <mdk-210696...@mjk.tus.primenet.com> m...@u.arizona.edu (Melissa D. Katz) writes:
>From: m...@u.arizona.edu (Melissa D. Katz)
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>> what's "normal." Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic &
>> Statistica Manual of mental disorders) some time ago, and that book is
>> published by the American Psychiatric Association, which is *not* the
>> most progressive organization in the world.
I think it was 2 editions ago that they removed homosexuality as a mental
illness or deviant behavior. And you're right, they aren't known for being
progressive
Therapists (mostly) do not approach a gay or lesbian client with the goal of
curing them anymore. Pschology has finally come to realize that we all deal
with the same basic difficulties which are impacted by the events in our
lives.
Lady
Fred McCall
ni...@istar.ca (Nightfall) wrote:
:mt5...@vuokko.uta.fi (Maria Tarkka) wrote:
:
:>But gay love/sex/whatever between males...
:>I love it! Maybe it is because I love men and like to read about gorgeous
:>males Anne so beautifully describes.
:
:You mean there are others out there like me???
:
:I've always found hetersexuals dull in comparison.
It's common enough that there is a (somewhat derogatory) phrase for
the phenomenon. Those who actually practice this kind of preference
in real life rather than just in reading material are generally
referred to as 'fag hags' (at least in some parts of the country, like
NYC, where gays are (relatively) common).
Fred McCall
The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
:"It makes me so angry how Anne pushes straight scenes into each and almost
:every book she writes..."
Your preference to complain about (although it's not actually true in
Anne's books).
:Let's face it, folks, the world is NOT suffering from a lack of straight
:sex scenes,
Irrelevant.
:Ans finally: I've said it before and I'll say it again: No-one is
:forcing you to read these books.
Say it all you want. Your position, then, is presumably that no one
should be allowed to criticize, complain about, or dislike any single
small jot or tittle of these books? If that IS your position, what's
the point of a newsgroup like this one? If that IS NOT your position,
why do you apply it for this one issue and no others?
Fred McCall
jmk...@library.ucla.edu (JEFF KING) wrote:
:>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
:>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
:>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
:>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
:
:Did I use the word "homophobia"? I don't think so.
Did I say that you did? Reading carefully, one finds that I am using
two variants of 'you', above. One is you, Jeff King. The other is
'you, people in general who want to take this position'. If I had
intended to say that you, Jeff King, had used the word 'homophobia',
that parenthetical portion of the sentence above would have read,
"e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or your use of silly,
invented words like 'homophobia'"/
I trust that you can now see what I was actually saying. Sorry if it
wasn't clear to you the first time around.
:And the
:"disgust" that you describe may be a standard reaction for many people, but
:that is only because it has been a sociologically conditioned response.
I have to (at least somewhat) question this, because it would seem to
imply that sexual orientation, in general, is "sociologically
conditioned", which would seem to imply that being gay is a choice, as
so many anti-gays claim. I think the idea of being gay as a choice
(rather than nature) is, generally, stupid (although presumably some
small amount of (mostly) female homosexuality is the result of
psychological trauma). That leaves me wondering whether the flip side
of that (typical male distaste at the idea of gay male sex) is TOTALLY
conditioned. To some degree, history would indicate that you're
right. However, I remain unconvinced (and consider it irrelevant in
any case).
:Most
:of us have been trained to feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's right.
'Right' and 'wrong' are rather irrelevant to the issue. FEELINGS
aren't 'right' or 'wrong'; they just are. ACTING OUT on them can be
right or wrong, but not the feelings themselves.
:I stand by what I said. Somebody responded with a rather knee-jerk reaction to
:the sexual content. This woman may not have been aware of the homoerotic
:content of Anne Rice's work beforehand, but I would suggest she find something
:else to read if this bothers her, since this is something that can be found in
:much of her work.
And is a legitimate critique of her work, coming from people who
strongly do not like it. Why is it that this one issue seems to be
somehow sacrosanct in its immunity to criticism?
:>:BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
:
:>But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
:>have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
:
:If you have a negative opinion about homosexuality, you might wish to consider
:where you express it, though.
And if you try to put words in my mouth or claim I have attitudes I do
not, based on evidence so thin, I'd suggest you consider CAREFULLY
where you express it.
:I think this newsgroup is an accepting, open
:place, and making blanket statements about how homosexuality disgusts you
:isn't a particularly wise thing to do.
Firstly, that's not what I said. Secondly, even if it were, are not
straight white males entitled to have opinions that disagree with
yours?
:>Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
:>kiss my wife.
:
:Since your heterosexuality enjoys such "approval", your flaunting it by
:kissing your opposite-gender partner probably would scarcely raise an eyebrow.
You appear to miss the point, which is that if YOU want to be
disgusted at displays of heterosexuality, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. You can
feel whatever you want to feel. SO CAN OTHERS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I trust you understand my position somewhat better now?
: Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
:>disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
:
:No, but it is about time certain straight people start giving some serious
:thought to how much THEIR sexuality is inflicted upon everyone, and how a
:certain segment of the society may feel about THAT.
Why? You are entitled to feel however you want to feel. What you are
NOT entitled to do is try to dictate how OTHERS 'should' feel. What
you are NOT entitled to do is ACT OUT on your 'disgust'.
:And maybe you should consider why this "gay sex" thing disgusts you.
Not all gay sex; just men on men. Like most American men, I rather
enjoy the idea of female homo- (or bi-) sexuality. That makes me
pretty 'normal', so I don't see any particular need to generate angst
over it. I'm sorry if my normality bothers you (but not TOO sorry,
since I'm entitled to like, dislike, and enjoy anything I want without
having to clear it with a bunch of militants of various stripes
first).
:What is it to you, anyhow?
Nothing, until I see it (or read about it in books which I otherwise
enjoy). In the former case, I'm entitled to be as disgusted as I want
to be. In the latter case, I'm equally entitled to criticize this as
something I would consider a flaw in the books. AND SO ARE YOU.
Ain't America wonderful (for those who really understand the point of
the whole thing)?
Fred McCall
r_eu...@clark.net (RubyEuropa) wrote:
:Hmm.. but if this is an open and accepting place, then shouldn't one
:also have the freedom to voice their opinion if they do find it
:disgusting? Shouldn't it work both ways?
EXACTLY my point! Thank you, Ruby.
Fred McCall
s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
:The Thing (c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu) wrote:
:: How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"?
:
:I think that is a good question.
And I think you need to refer to my original use of the word (with the
qualification I gave it) to get a very good answer. 'Normal' just IS;
it doesn't imply a value judgement. Given that the percentage of gays
in the population is less than 10% (with the 'most likely' number
being something under 4%), you have to go a lot of standard deviations
out along the population curve to get to gays.
In Ancient Greece, it was 'normal' for women to be treated basically
as breeding beasts and for men to seek the company of other men when
they wanted a meaningful relationship. Note, however, that this can
be a somewhat dangerous line of argument for gays, since it can be
used to imply that being gay *is* a choice.
Fred McCall
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
:Ruby, I think, perhaps the difference lies in this example:
:
: A) Black skin is disgusting
: B) I don't find black skin sexually appealing
:
:One is emotional and an opinion and it uses words associated strongly
:with negativity. The other is factual, non-emotional.
Both are emotional. Both can also be factual.
:One would be called prejudice, the other a preference.
Either could be called either one.
:That's what it seems to come
:down to: perhaps you don't like homosexual sex, but do you mistreat gays
:because of it? Do you hate them? It's the latter feeling that I think we
:have no place for in the group or, pretty much, on the planet.
Note that it is the ACTING OUT on the emotion that is 'prejudice'.
Someone may vomit every time they think about gay sex, but so long as
they don't treat gays any differently than anyone else in their
dealings with them, it is an issue of FEELING and PREFERENCE and not
of prejudice.
:Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
:Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
Should we ask Wendy how she knows what bug blood tastes like? ;-)
Paul de Anguera
S. A. Buday wrote:
> The gay scenes written in Anne Rice novels and the like, are written
> largely for a heterosexual female audience. While mainstream books that
> contain lesbian relationships, are written for male audiences. If you go
> to a lesbian/gay section of a bookstore and pick up a book, you'll find
> that the sex written for a homosexual audience, is very different.
>
> Sounds odd, but it may account for the reason you don't like reading it...
> <shrug>
This is symmetrical. The idea of sex between women intrigues me, but that
of sex between men is gross.
-- Paul de Anguera
Wendamatica
> :Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
> :Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
Fred:
> Should we ask Wendy how she knows what bug blood tastes like? ;-)
You can ask Fred, but only red hot fangs in my neck will make me tell.
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
Wendamatica
> :>But gay love/sex/whatever between males...
> :>I love it! Maybe it is because I love men and like to read about gorgeous
> :>males Anne so beautifully describes.
> :
> :You mean there are others out there like me???
> It's common enough that there is a (somewhat derogatory) phrase for
> the phenomenon. Those who actually practice this kind of preference
> in real life rather than just in reading material are generally
> referred to as 'fag hags' (at least in some parts of the country, like
> NYC, where gays are (relatively) common).
The phrase exists and is used in San Francisco too, where my gay friends
assured me I was a fag hag, a label I wear with pride. I don't know
what you mean by practicing this preference in real life as opposed to
reading material though. I think any woman who's friends with gay
guys for awhile gets this affectionate monicker. So what do we call hetero
guys with a yen for gay women? A bag of black jellybeans to the first
one with a decent response.
Wendamatica
Fred:
> I have to (at least somewhat) question this, because it would seem to
> imply that sexual orientation, in general, is "sociologically
> conditioned", which would seem to imply that being gay is a choice, as
> so many anti-gays claim. I think the idea of being gay as a choice
> (rather than nature) is, generally, stupid (although presumably some
> small amount of (mostly) female homosexuality is the result of
> psychological trauma). That leaves me wondering whether the flip side
> of that (typical male distaste at the idea of gay male sex) is TOTALLY
> conditioned. To some degree, history would indicate that you're
> right. However, I remain unconvinced (and consider it irrelevant in
I agree with you here and I also agree that it is hard to determine what
is conditioned and what isn't. I do tend to think that most of us would
practice *some* form of bisexuality in a "perfect" world, but that most
of us most of the time would tend toward hetero sex since evolution would
tend to demand it so that we keep the species going so we can create more
newsgroups and have more huge conversations.
Harold H. Polsky
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:10:08 GMT, r_eu...@clark.net (RubyEuropa)
wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but homophobic is the right word here. Just
because you don't find something to your personal taste does not mean
you should be disgusted. There are a lot of activities involved in
*NO* homosexual sex that some people find are not to their personal
tastes. They *Do Not Like* these things. If something disgutsd you
because it is not something you would want to do, then your feelings
go beyond the normal "I don't agree with that sort of thing", and
border on something more ominous. Anyone who can honestly saame and
mean that they find homosexuality disguting has serious homophobic
tendancies. I am not homosexual, but I feel that anything two
consenting adults do in the privacy of their own intimacy is *NONE OF
MY BUSINESS*, and do not find it disguting or distateful. It's
different. And our differences are what make us who we are. They
also make the world a little less boring.
Just MHO.
Fred McCall
rg...@odyssee.net () wrote:
:I cannot understand why some people find something "distasteful" just
:because it is not from their point of view. (i.e. hetrosexual).
And I cannot understand why some people seem to feel that there is
something wrong with others expressing their opinions about some
things in books, just because the particular 'thing' happens to be
some activist issue.
:As to
:the "gay scenes into each and almost every book she writes" it is
:quite disturbing that someone could possibly be not offended by
:Vampires who kill quite violently, but find it distasteful if two of
:these vampires declare their love for each other. ( I'm not knocking
:the violence, just illustrating a point...I LOVED the Vampire
:Chronicles)
Well, the point sort of is that when one picks up a book about
vampires, one knows that one is getting a book where the main theme is
vampires. I don't think that Anne considers her books to be primarily
'gay fiction', although a lot of the "then you shouldn't read them"
types seem to feel that way.
Fred McCall
The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
:On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
:
:> bb...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (JoAnne Soper-Cook) wrote:
:>
:> : :JEFF KING (jmk...@library.ucla.edu) writes:
:> :> You're entitled
:> :> to your opinion, but what is distasteful to you may not
:> :> be
:> :> distasteful to others. I never cease to be amazed by how easily
:> :> people forget that heterosexuality is thrust upon everybody all the
:> :> time--straight and gay--
:>
:> Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
:> And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
:> pejorative, sense of the word
:
:How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"? We live in a culture
:where that's been the ONLY opportunity presented to us.
So what you are saying is that gays and bi's don't exist in our
culture? Hardly seems believable.
I can "be so sure" that heterosexuality is 'normal' because I can
count. Even though I made a point of saying what I meant when I used
the word 'normal', you seem insistent upon trying to make my statement
say something it did not.
:Who says
:bisexuality- which allows for both sexual enjoyment and population
:control- something we desperately need in today's world- isn't more normal
:than EITHER being straight or gay?
You are confusing 'normal' with 'natural'. I know of no species where
bisexuality is either 'normal' (the overwhelmingly prevalent behaviour
in a population) or 'natural' to the population as a whole. It *is*
typically 'natural' for small sub-populations (i.e., there are gay and
bi- animals in populations, but they are very small minorities).
:> :> yet when some are confronted with the idea of gay sex, they respond with
:> :> such disgust and righteous indignation.
:>
:> Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
:> is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
:
:Why?
By definition, unless you want to change the meaning of 'normal'.
:> :BINGO! It's the 90's, people---love is a many-gendered thing... ;)
:>
:> But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
:> have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
:
:But straight sex is shoved in our faces EVRY day. Watch tv. Go see a
:movie. Read a book. All of them shove straight sex at the
:watcher/reader. Why is that ok? Men mentioning wives and girlfreinds at
:the office, saying you're going out with a member of the opposite sex.
:Holding your MOTOS's hand. All of these reinforce the idea of straight
:sex. That's not "shoving it in our faces"?
Not generally, no. You see, for it to qualify as "shoving it in your
face", it has to be DELIBERATE. You can complain about things like
romance novels and love stories 'shoving it in your face' if you like.
:> Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
:> kiss my wife.
:
:Wife = straight sex. You're shoving your sexuality at us JUST BY SAYING
:THAT, Fred. It's just that it's considered so "normal" that you probably
:don't even realize it.
Why is it that folks like you can't simply read what is said without
trying to make all sorts of stupid assumptions about the person saying
it? Go back and read what you are complaining about again and
consider that the point of what I am saying is that people are
perfectly within their rights to criticize things they don't like,
even if it bumps up against the 'sensitivities' of activist idiots
like you.
Now then, can you say 'example of corresponding position'? No, I
didn't think you could.
:> Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to disgust as if it
:> is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
:
:Have you ever stopped to examine WHY it disgusts you? Just think about
:it.
It disgusts me because it does. Same reason I don't like squash and
think that it tastes disgusting. Why is it that your ilk can't
understand that and must ascribe a 'deeper meaning' to it?
:And don't say "cuz it's sick/disgusting/ect."
Please try REAL HARD not to put words in my mouth or inflict YOUR
biases on me.
:Really THINK about it.
Why? Do you spend a lot of time angsting about things that you don't
like, or is it only people who disagree with you on this particular
issue that are supposed to do that? Sorry, but I have more important
things to do in my life.
However, I *will* return the favour and ask YOU to think about
something. Have you ever considered that by taking this attitude with
someone who feels the perfectly normal dislike for seeing/reading
about gay sex that you push them into the position that you are
presupposing for them when you start your browbeating?
For example, I used to be in favour of changing the laws to permit gay
marriages. After running into a whole herd of net.militants who tried
to browbeat me over my being opposed to laws placing gays into the
same special protected status that some racial minorities are in
(because they were crying that they wanted 'equal rights', but wanting
protections that *I* don't get), I am now opposed. Gays have the same
marriage rights that I do; they can marry any single member of the
biologically opposite sex who will have them, who is old enough, and
who is not too closely related. The militant, 'in your face'
activists, with their assumptions of what people who disagree with
them on any detail must think and their month's long tirades of
personal abuse, convinced me to change my position.
By all means, feel free to convince me that I need to move even
further into the 'anti-gay' camp. That *IS* what your approach does
to most people.
Fred McCall
ma...@combase.com wrote:
:My boyfriend read a cry to heaven and I consider him pretty
:"homophobic" , and he made no mention of the sex scenes but was very
:disturbed by the whole idea of castrating a person, just to preserve a
:voice. (not that any reason for it would appeal to him)
Well, I find the whole idea of castration pretty disgusting to
contemplate or read about, too. However, oddly enough, there aren't a
lot of people who will browbeat you over expressing that opinion,
which is probably why it wasn't even mentioned.
Fred McCall
fy...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao) wrote:
:The Thing <c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu> wrote:
:>On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Fred McCall wrote:
:>
:>How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"?
:
:'Normal' is a relative term. It's normal for some groups of people to
:practice cannibalism.
Quite correct, and this is EXACTLY the way in which I used the word.
I even added a comment at the point where I used it in an effort to
forestall exactly the sort of knee-jerk reaction that I am still
getting from some quarters.
:However, the tendency to equate 'normal' with 'moral' is totally
:wrong.
Quite right, as is the tendency in some quarters to equate recognition
that something is or is not the norm (and hence 'normal') with various
opinions about the thing being discussed.
:>> Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
:>> is 'normal' in heterosexual males.
:>
:>Why?
:
:Because the judgment if made from the POV of the heterosexual males.
:Again, 'digust' doesn't mean 'feel that homosexuality is immoral'. We
:might be disgusted to watch a cow getting slaughter at the
:slughterhouse, but most of us are familiar with the idea, and still
:have no problem eating the steak.
Quite right.
:>Wife = straight sex. You're shoving your sexuality at us JUST BY SAYING
:>THAT, Fred. It's just that it's considered so "normal" that you probably
:>don't even realize it.
:
:He was using it as an example of straight sex. The context of that
:statement is that everyone else has a right to be disgusted with
:straight sex, just as he is disgusted with gay sex. If that was a
:'shove in the face', it was to make a point.
Again, quite right. I think the reaction of the person you are
responding to is an indication of what part of the problem is, though.
It's a demonstration of the same sort of knee-jerk reaction to
disagreement that one finds among the whackos of the Religious Right
when discussing this issue.
:I know I'm not getting brownie points with most of you, but I think
:that the threat is not from people who think that gay sex is
:disgusting, but from people who think it is immoral, or people who
:want to label the whole lifestyle as immoral, and use that to take
:away people's rights.
Quite right again, and that 'threat' comes from people on BOTH sides
of the issue. Activist militants are often their own worst enemies,
as are most people who try to polarize issues.
Fred McCall
rg...@odyssee.net () wrote:
:f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) wrote:
:
:
:>Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
:>And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
:>pejorative, sense of the word
:
:A better choice of words would be "more common"
No, a better choice would be for people to read the words for what
they mean rather than what they want to push into them. 'Normal' is
the word I used and it means exactly what I meant to say. It is well
beyond "more common".
:>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
:>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
:>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
:>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
:
:I don't think that "disgust" with homosexuality is a "normal"
:hetrosexual response.
Once again, read what is said. It is NORMAL (in our culture) for
heterosexual males to find the idea of man on man sex just a little
nauseating. You don't get anywhere by telling people that what they
feel is 'wrong', any more than the anti-gay extremists get anywhere by
trying to tell people that the sexuality they happen to have is
'wrong'. Think about how you feel when they do that, and you'll have
something of a clue about how *I* feel when people start trying to
impute positions to me based on CORRECT usage of English.
:"Indifference" would be a "normal" response.
But indifference is NOT the normal response in a heterosexual male
presented with man on man sex, no matter how much a lot of gays want
it to be and no matter how much they try to imply that there is
something 'wrong' with feeling that way.
:As for the " silly, invented words like 'homophobia'". Aside from the
:fact that all words in any language are "invented" at some point or
:another, there is obviously a need for such a word considering that
:there are people who are disgusted and morally outraged by something
:that doesn't affect them.
You need to separate "disgusted" from "morally outraged". The problem
with the word 'homophobia' is that it was 'invented' in an effort to
imply that anyone who disagreed with gay activists was somehow, in
some sort of psychobabble sense, afraid that they had 'latent'
homosexual tendencies and that is why they were so anti-gay and afraid
of them. This is the problem with adopting made up words from groups
who have an agenda to push.
:>But the decade has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to
:>have other peoples' sexuality shoved into their faces or not, JoAnne.
:>Hey, anyone who wants to be is perfectly free to be disgusted when I
:>kiss my wife. Why is there all this effort to take away MY right to
:>disgust as if it is some sort of aberrant behaviour?
:
:I don't think disgust is a right. You certainly have the right to
:disagree with homosexuality, but disgust is not basic human right.
And on this we most vehemently disagree. The moment you start trying
to tell me that I don't have the right to FEEL certain things, you
open yourself up for people to tell you that YOU don't have the right
to feel certain things, like, say, sexual attraction to other males.
I don't consider that to be a supportable position. Perhaps you do.
:The problem with disgust is that too often (not saying this is the
:case with you) disgust is acted out in the form of discrimination.
:Another reason for that "silly, invented word"
Well, NOW you get to something that is actually wrong, but you are not
going to win friends and influence people by telling them that what
they FEEL is wrong and not allowed because SOME people act out on it.
This is EXACTLY the same attitude that the anti-gay types take towards
YOU; the position being that feeling attraction for other men is a
'wrong' thing to feel. The difference is that you are demonstrating
very poor aim, in that what YOU do is force people into the other camp
by telling them what they feel is 'wrong'. If what you want is more
people against you, this is a good tactic on your part. Otherwise,
wouldn't you say that it is rather counter-productive?
:What is wrong with tolerance instead of disgust?
Nothing. It's just not the normal reaction of heterosexual males when
presented with gay male sex.
Lady
>The phrase exists and is used in San Francisco too, where my gay friends
>assured me I was a fag hag, a label I wear with pride. I don't know
>what you mean by practicing this preference in real life as opposed to
>reading material though. I think any woman who's friends with gay
>guys for awhile gets this affectionate monicker. So what do we call hetero
>guys with a yen for gay women? A bag of black jellybeans to the first
>one with a decent response.
How 'bout Little Boy Blues (think about it), or Dyke Spikes?
Sorry, not real creative right now.
IF I win, I want a gaggle of Black vamps instead, OK?
I too wear fag hag as a badge of pride. My gay friends mean much to me.
Lady
S. Olmstead-Dean
Fred McCall (f...@onramp.net) wrote:
: s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
: :The Thing (c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu) wrote:
: :: How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"?
: :
: :I think that is a good question.
: And I think you need to refer to my original use of the word (with the
: qualification I gave it) to get a very good answer. 'Normal' just IS;
: it doesn't imply a value judgement. Given that the percentage of gays
: in the population is less than 10% (with the 'most likely' number
: being something under 4%), you have to go a lot of standard deviations
: out along the population curve to get to gays.
I'd be curious to know your source for these statistics. They seem
remarkably low. Anyway, "common" doesn't equal "normal." Violence in
the city streets is a common thing these days. Does that make it normal?
: In Ancient Greece, it was 'normal' for women to be treated basically
: as breeding beasts and for men to seek the company of other men when
: they wanted a meaningful relationship. Note, however, that this can
: be a somewhat dangerous line of argument for gays, since it can be
: used to imply that being gay *is* a choice.
It could be used, but it would be poorly used. Social pressure one way
or another can go a long way. Right now, the social pressure is that
being straight is "normal." Then, homosexual behavior was considered
"normal." Hmmm...might there maybe be a few more gays in the world than
you think?
Anyway, this whole argument is irrelevant. We were, at one time,
discussing _Cry to Heaven_ and whether or not the homosexual sex scenes
were forced and/or innappropriate. Given the life cicumstances of the
characters involved, I say they were not forced, nor were they
inappropriate. You find them repulsive. Skip over those pages then.
And remind me to scream wildly when I find a rape scene in a story, even
if it is entirely relevant to the story. :)
Stephanie
S. Olmstead-Dean
Fred McCall (f...@onramp.net) wrote:
: rg...@odyssee.net () wrote:
: :I cannot understand why some people find something "distasteful" just
: :because it is not from their point of view. (i.e. hetrosexual).
: And I cannot understand why some people seem to feel that there is
: something wrong with others expressing their opinions about some
: things in books, just because the particular 'thing' happens to be
: some activist issue.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but we may certainly feel
equally free to disagree and criticize as strongly as you. This is a
forum for discussion, is it not?
: Well, the point sort of is that when one picks up a book about
: vampires, one knows that one is getting a book where the main theme is
: vampires. I don't think that Anne considers her books to be primarily
: 'gay fiction', although a lot of the "then you shouldn't read them"
: types seem to feel that way.
_Cry to Heaven_, however, isn't about Vampires. It's about Castrati
singers. The sex involved in the work was relevant.
Your mileage may vary, but you can still skip over it if it "disgusts" you.
Stephanie
rg...@odyssee.net
f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) wrote:
>Once again, read what is said. It is NORMAL (in our culture) for
>heterosexual males to find the idea of man on man sex just a little
>nauseating. You don't get anywhere by telling people that what they
>feel is 'wrong', any more than the anti-gay extremists get anywhere by
>trying to tell people that the sexuality they happen to have is
>'wrong'. Think about how you feel when they do that, and you'll have
>something of a clue about how *I* feel when people start trying to
>impute positions to me based on CORRECT usage of English.
First of all, I apologize. You are right, I shouldn't make
suggestions on what words to use when expressing yourself.
I never meant to imply that what anyone FEELS is wrong. But there is
something wrong with how SOME people express HOW they feel. (I am
talking about hate groups...NOT you)
Also I will agree with you that the vast majority of men will find the
thought of THEMSELVES having sex with another male will cause them to
be sick.
>:"Indifference" would be a "normal" response.
>But indifference is NOT the normal response in a heterosexual male
>presented with man on man sex, no matter how much a lot of gays want
>it to be and no matter how much they try to imply that there is
>something 'wrong' with feeling that way.
I guess, I talking about the difference between 1) The hetrosexual
male's thought of himself with another man vs. 2) The hetrosexual
male's thought of two other men together.
In the first case I can certainly understand the disgust, but in the
second case?
>You need to separate "disgusted" from "morally outraged". The problem
>with the word 'homophobia' is that it was 'invented' in an effort to
>imply that anyone who disagreed with gay activists was somehow, in
>some sort of psychobabble sense, afraid that they had 'latent'
>homosexual tendencies and that is why they were so anti-gay and afraid
>of them. This is the problem with adopting made up words from groups
>who have an agenda to push.
We seem to have different defininitions for what the word
"homophobic" means. As far as I have used or have seen it used, it
refers only to people who hate homosexuals and in some way act upon
it. The idea that all homophobics are latent homosexuals, to me, is
absurd! Just to make sure you realize, I was NOT implying that you
were either a latent homosexual or a homophobe.
>:The problem with disgust is that too often (not saying this is the
>:case with you) disgust is acted out in the form of discrimination.
>:Another reason for that "silly, invented word"
>Well, NOW you get to something that is actually wrong, but you are not
>going to win friends and influence people by telling them that what
>they FEEL is wrong and not allowed because SOME people act out on it.
You misunderstand what I am saying, I DO NOT think of what you feel
is WRONG.
>This is EXACTLY the same attitude that the anti-gay types take towards
>YOU; the position being that feeling attraction for other men is a
>'wrong' thing to feel. The difference is that you are demonstrating
>very poor aim, in that what YOU do is force people into the other camp
>by telling them what they feel is 'wrong'. If what you want is more
>people against you, this is a good tactic on your part. Otherwise,
>wouldn't you say that it is rather counter-productive?
Again...you are NOT WRONG for how you FEEL. I would fight for the
freedom of thought.
Maybe, I am being overly sensitive to your choice of the word
"disgusting" to display how you feel. In fact at this point I just
re-read all of your posts and you never say you find homosexuals
disgusting just the actual sex.
Once again...please be assured that I in no way suggest that you are
wrong for feeling that way nor that you should change the way you
feel. If that is what came accross in my post then I am sorry for that
Ryan
Fred McCall
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
:The phrase exists and is used in San Francisco too, where my gay friends
:assured me I was a fag hag, a label I wear with pride. I don't know
:what you mean by practicing this preference in real life as opposed to
:reading material though.
Seems obvious. I mean those who actually hang with gays rather than
just reading about them.
:I think any woman who's friends with gay
:guys for awhile gets this affectionate monicker. So what do we call hetero
:guys with a yen for gay women?
Normal? ;-)
Fred McCall
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
:> :Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
:> :Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
:
:Fred:
:> Should we ask Wendy how she knows what bug blood tastes like? ;-)
:
:You can ask Fred, but only red hot fangs in my neck will make me tell.
Ok, then. Wait a minute, while I get my dentures and the
blowtorch....
Fred McCall
fy...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao) wrote:
:Fred McCall <f...@onramp.net> wrote:
:>Uh, that's because being heterosexual is the 'normal' state, Jeff.
:>And before you flip out, I mean 'normal' in the analytical, not
:>pejorative, sense of the word
:
:analytical sense? Does this have something to do with reproduction,
:or did you have something completely different in mind?
Something completely different. What I meant by 'analytical' was the
way people analyzing data typically use it; i.e., the mathematical
definition.
:>Excuse me, but 'disgust' at the idea of men having sex with each other
:>is 'normal' in heterosexual males. Attempts to link it to other
:>things (e.g., your 'righteous indignation' comment or silly, invented
:>words like 'homophobia') merely discredit you.
:
:But where does that disgust come from,
Why does it matter?
:and if you (in general) are
:disgusted with male-male sex, why are you reading Anne Rice?
Because the main theme of her books is NOT ostensibly gay male sex?
In fact, you have to look pretty hard to find it in the first couple
books of the VampChron, although it becomes more emphasized in the
later (much worse, IMO) books.
:However, I think that there has to be a distinction made here. For a
:heterosexual male to be disgusted at the idea of male-male sex is not
:uncommon. That's certainly not homophobia.
This seems to depend on just who is doing the defining. I'd bet you
could find any number of gay activists who would disagree with you,
simply based on their having an agenda and wanting to denigrate anyone
who disagrees with them.
:Also, there has to be a distinction
:between homosexual sex, and homosexual love.
Yep. I don't much care WHAT other people do, as long as they don't do
it in the streets. It frightens the horses, you know.
Wendamatica
> >reading material though. I think any woman who's friends with gay
> >one with a decent response.
> How 'bout Little Boy Blues (think about it), or Dyke Spikes?
> Sorry, not real creative right now.
> IF I win, I want a gaggle of Black vamps instead, OK?
> I too wear fag hag as a badge of pride. My gay friends mean much to me.
> Lady
*Wendy solemnly looks at Lady* I am sorry little miss, but those names
do nadda, zip, nix for me. I, ahem, don't even get the first one.
Neither has the cadence of "fag hag", the je ne sais quoi if you will.
But, if you win in the end, I will give you *half* jellybeans and *half*
black vamps. Any particular gender/age/power? (The vamps, not the beans)
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
The Thing
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Wendamatica wrote:
> > >reading material though. I think any woman who's friends with gay
> > >guys for awhile gets this affectionate monicker. So what do we call
> > >hetero guys with a yen for gay women? A bag of black jellybeans to
> > >the first one with a decent response.
>
> > How 'bout Little Boy Blues (think about it), or Dyke Spikes?
> > Sorry, not real creative right now.
> > IF I win, I want a gaggle of Black vamps instead, OK?
> > I too wear fag hag as a badge of pride. My gay friends mean much to me.
> > Lady
>
> *Wendy solemnly looks at Lady* I am sorry little miss, but those names
> do nadda, zip, nix for me. I, ahem, don't even get the first one.
> Neither has the cadence of "fag hag", the je ne sais quoi if you will.
> But, if you win in the end, I will give you *half* jellybeans and *half*
> black vamps. Any particular gender/age/power? (The vamps, not the beans)
Well, if you wanna be formal about it, there's always "homophile"- ie,
someone who's interested in homosexuality. This word has advantages
because it allows for all combinations- a woman interested in gay men, a
man interested in gay women, etc.
Yes, it's a bit formal, but it's something to think about. (-:
BTW, I consider myself a hardcore homphile. (-:
> Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
> Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
> A.B.A-R: Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires
+----Catherine Johnson -------------- c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu----+
| "See? I told you it was small." "What is it they say...?" |
| "Yeah, they say that on my planet too." -the Doctor and Grace, _Dr._Who_ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
kralary
Fred McCall wrote:
>
> However, I *will* return the favour and ask YOU to think about
> something. Have you ever considered that by taking this attitude with
> someone who feels the perfectly normal dislike for seeing/reading
> about gay sex that you push them into the position that you are
> presupposing for them when you start your browbeating?
>
> For example, I used to be in favour of changing the laws to permit gay
> marriages. After running into a whole herd of net.militants who tried
> to browbeat me over my being opposed to laws placing gays into the
> same special protected status that some racial minorities are in
> (because they were crying that they wanted 'equal rights', but wanting
> protections that *I* don't get), I am now opposed. Gays have the same
> marriage rights that I do; they can marry any single member of the
> biologically opposite sex who will have them, who is old enough, and
> who is not too closely related. The militant, 'in your face'
> activists, with their assumptions of what people who disagree with
> them on any detail must think and their month's long tirades of
> personal abuse, convinced me to change my position.
>
> By all means, feel free to convince me that I need to move even
> further into the 'anti-gay' camp. That *IS* what your approach does
> to most people.
Hi, Fred. I'm baaaack! I'm going to try to keep this in the
"discussion" vein...
I understand what you're saying about the "net.militants" and they're
browbeating. I must say, however, that I am very surprised that _you_
would allow their behavior to influence your belief that the laws to
permit gay marriages should change. You were right 100% in your belief.
I also agree with the idea that "equal rights" should not be different
for some groups and not others just by the very definition. (The two,
however, are different topics and one should not influence the other.)
Having said that, I do not agree with your statement that "gays have the
same marriage rights that I do." You qualified your statement by saying
"they can marry any single member of the biologically opposite sex who
will have them, who is old enough, and who is not too closely related."
Agreed. They can in the "I believe and am committed if you are" sense.
They cannot marry and have it recognized by law. That is a right that
you and I have and same gendered marriages do not at this point in time.
I wanted to broach this because having it recognized by law affords me
the option of including my husband on my health insurance and some other
nifty things that I find appalling that others are not entitled to
because their commitment is not recognized as the same as mine simply
because their life partner is of the same sex.
adding my two coppers...
--Rachel
RubyEuropa
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> saideth:
>Ruby, I agree that I could say disgust and you could say dislike and we
>both mean the same thing. I guess I'm going for the conventional
>meanings and generally disgust is a hate word.
Maybe it's just a regionalism thang <g>. "disgust" is used frequently
where I live and has a ton of different meanings. one i often here is
"you disgust me" (translated to "you piss me off")
Ruby
RubyEuropa
hpo...@comfo.ca (Harold H. Polsky) saideth:
>Sorry to disagree, but homophobic is the right word here. Just
>because you don't find something to your personal taste does not mean
>you should be disgusted.
As I mentioned previously: 1) it depends on what one means by the word
"disgust" and 2) isn't it rather difficult to label anyone
"homophobic" unless you know quite a lot about the person? It's a
blanket statement to make, in my opinion.
>tastes. They *Do Not Like* these things. If something disgutsd you
>because it is not something you would want to do, then your feelings
>go beyond the normal "I don't agree with that sort of thing",
And then we go back to the circular argument of: "define normal"
On a much lighter note, but related to this thread, I worked in Dublin
last winter and got to talking with a co-worker about how different
people use different words to mean the same things (what started the
discussion was "getting right pissed last nite" (getting drunk)).
Anyhoos, Katie (my co-worker) was telling me about an American who'd
come over for business reasons and Katie and friends wanted to take a
smoke break. So they turned to the American and said "let's go have a
fag" Talk about confusion! LOL
Ruby
Frank Yao
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
>So what do we call hetero
>guys with a yen for gay women? A bag of black jellybeans to the first
>one with a decent response.
Someone not getting any. ;)
dyke mikes?
- frank (too early to be creative)
--
****** Frank Yao, fy...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca ***************************
* In the name of the Father, the Skeptic, and the Son, I have just *
* one more ... stupid question - Alanis Morrissette *
****************************** http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~fyao ******
Frank Yao
Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>I agree with you here and I also agree that it is hard to determine what
>is conditioned and what isn't. I do tend to think that most of us would
>practice *some* form of bisexuality in a "perfect" world, but that most
>of us most of the time would tend toward hetero sex since evolution would
>tend to demand it so that we keep the species going so we can create more
>newsgroups and have more huge conversations.
Actually, Wendy, didn't the Kinsey study show that about 10% of the
population was totally gay, 10% of the population completely straight,
and the rest somewhere in between, and hence the creation of those
darn numbers that I can never use properly, because I forget which end
is which? (Okay, 'show' might be too strong of a word - 'suggest'.)
- frank
Frank Yao
Harold H. Polsky <hpo...@comfo.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:10:08 GMT, r_eu...@clark.net (RubyEuropa)
>wrote:
>
>>fy...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Frank Yao) saideth:
>>
>>
>>>heterosexual male to be disgusted at the idea of male-male sex is not
>>>uncommon. That's certainly not homophobia.
>>
>>merely because they find same-sex sex unappealing or "disgusting." The
>>word is flung about too rashly.
>>
>mean that they find homosexuality disguting has serious homophobic
>tendancies. I am not homosexual, but I feel that anything two
>consenting adults do in the privacy of their own intimacy is *NONE OF
>MY BUSINESS*, and do not find it disguting or distateful.
Two points here: There is no rationale to connect homosexuality with
homosexual sex. Perhaps you can say that the latter is a subset of
the former, but enve then I would disagree with that depending on the
context. (Would you automatically connect all the things associated
with heterosexuality - love etc - with heterosexual sex?)
Secondly, and more importantly, this threat started as talking about
the homosexual sex in CtH, and the author's disgust at what she felt
was homosexual sex 'pushed' on the audience of the book. This is no
longer just in the bedrooms two consenting adults. However, if
presented with the idea of male-male sex (hence it's no longer in the
bedrooms of two consenting adults), most (a large majority) of
straight men would have feelings of disgust. This doesn't imply right
or wrong, but is just a statement of fact, and all that Fred, myself
and Ruby have been trying to say. (Poke me, if I'm wrong, Fred and
Ruby)
I personally agree that it's not an optimal situation, but there is no
need to throw labels about, as labels usually tend to lead to negative
preceptions that are not true.
Fred McCall
s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
:Fred McCall (f...@onramp.net) wrote:
:: s...@cqi.com (S. Olmstead-Dean) wrote:
:
:: :The Thing (c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu) wrote:
:: :: How can you be so sure hetrosexuality is "normal"?
:: :
:: :I think that is a good question.
:
:: And I think you need to refer to my original use of the word (with the
:: qualification I gave it) to get a very good answer. 'Normal' just IS;
:: it doesn't imply a value judgement. Given that the percentage of gays
:: in the population is less than 10% (with the 'most likely' number
:: being something under 4%), you have to go a lot of standard deviations
:: out along the population curve to get to gays.
:
:I'd be curious to know your source for these statistics. They seem
:remarkably low.
The last published numbers were along the order of 3%, heard in a
report on NPR.
:Anyway, "common" doesn't equal "normal." Violence in
:the city streets is a common thing these days. Does that make it normal?
No, and that's why the suggestion to use 'common' and 'uncommon'
rather than 'normal' and 'abnormal' is incorrect. If 70% (67% is 1
sigma) or so of everyone on the streets was engaging in violence, then
it would be 'normal'. Note that 70%+ of everyone IS heterosexual, so
that makes that 'normal'.
:: In Ancient Greece, it was 'normal' for women to be treated basically
:: as breeding beasts and for men to seek the company of other men when
:: they wanted a meaningful relationship. Note, however, that this can
:: be a somewhat dangerous line of argument for gays, since it can be
:: used to imply that being gay *is* a choice.
:
:It could be used, but it would be poorly used. Social pressure one way
:or another can go a long way. Right now, the social pressure is that
:being straight is "normal." Then, homosexual behavior was considered
:"normal." Hmmm...might there maybe be a few more gays in the world than
:you think?
Only for really loose definitions of 'gay'. I'm curious why you think
such reasoning would be 'poorly used'. It seems that once you start
claiming that straight people can be 'taught' to be gay, you are
pretty much stating the reverse, as well. If you are not, why is one
sexual preference 'learned' or 'a choice', but the other is not?
:Anyway, this whole argument is irrelevant. We were, at one time,
:discussing _Cry to Heaven_ and whether or not the homosexual sex scenes
:were forced and/or innappropriate. Given the life cicumstances of the
:characters involved, I say they were not forced, nor were they
:inappropriate.
Please go back and read my reply to the ORIGINAL poster, with regard
to the logic behind castrati being 'gay'.
:You find them repulsive. Skip over those pages then.
I do that. The question is why you have flame to get your say and
THEN try to end the thread in this way. Why not just hold your
tongue, you read what you want, and I read what I want? Too easy for
you?
:And remind me to scream wildly when I find a rape scene in a story, even
:if it is entirely relevant to the story. :)
Feel free. I know that I usually get a little nauseated as
descriptions of (real) rape, so there's no reason why you shouldn't.
Hell, there's no reason why you shouldn't, even if no one else does.
But then, that's sort of been my (often overlooked by gay zealots)
point....
Fred McCall
:I understand what you're saying about the "net.militants" and they're
:browbeating. I must say, however, that I am very surprised that _you_
:would allow their behavior to influence your belief that the laws to
:permit gay marriages should change.
They convinced me, with their rationalizations, twisting of words,
etc., that ANY change represented the 'nose of the camel' to creating
a privileged class of gays with special rights over and above those
that I have.
:You were right 100% in your belief.
: I also agree with the idea that "equal rights" should not be different
:for some groups and not others just by the very definition. (The two,
:however, are different topics and one should not influence the other.)
:Having said that, I do not agree with your statement that "gays have the
:same marriage rights that I do." You qualified your statement by saying
:"they can marry any single member of the biologically opposite sex who
:will have them, who is old enough, and who is not too closely related."
: Agreed. They can in the "I believe and am committed if you are" sense.
: They cannot marry and have it recognized by law. That is a right that
:you and I have and same gendered marriages do not at this point in time.
But that's the point. I can't 'marry' someone of the same sex as I
am. Neither can gays. We have the same rights in this regard. There
are people who I could not marry, no matter how much I might want to.
This category includes people who are under age, people who are
already married, people who are too closely related to me, and people
who are the same sex as me. Gays have the same restrictions. This is
'equal'.
: I wanted to broach this because having it recognized by law affords me
:the option of including my husband on my health insurance and some other
:nifty things that I find appalling that others are not entitled to
:because their commitment is not recognized as the same as mine simply
:because their life partner is of the same sex.
And they have a choice of the same people that I do, when it comes to
getting legally married. The issue is that they are not interested in
marrying any of the people whom they CAN legally marry and are
interested in marrying someone who is NOT in the group which they are
permitted to legally marry. Gays are not the only ones with that
problem. This is merely an issue of where to draw the line, not of
'equal' rights. They have 'equal' rights now.
Fred McCall
:>But indifference is NOT the normal response in a heterosexual male
:>presented with man on man sex, no matter how much a lot of gays want
:>it to be and no matter how much they try to imply that there is
:>something 'wrong' with feeling that way.
:
:I guess, I talking about the difference between 1) The hetrosexual
:male's thought of himself with another man vs. 2) The hetrosexual
:male's thought of two other men together.
:
:In the first case I can certainly understand the disgust, but in the
:second case?
You may not understand it, but it is the norm. There are certain
topics which typically make heterosexual men a bit nauseous. Gay male
sex is one of these.
:We seem to have different defininitions for what the word
:"homophobic" means. As far as I have used or have seen it used, it
:refers only to people who hate homosexuals and in some way act upon
:it. The idea that all homophobics are latent homosexuals, to me, is
:absurd!
That isn't how it is used now, but that is certainly its genesis.
That's why we have 'homo' (same) 'phobic' (fear), or, a FEAR of
homosexuals. The words has moved some since it originally appeared.
:Again...you are NOT WRONG for how you FEEL. I would fight for the
:freedom of thought.
Me, too. In fact, I have done so.
:Maybe, I am being overly sensitive to your choice of the word
:"disgusting" to display how you feel. In fact at this point I just
:re-read all of your posts and you never say you find homosexuals
:disgusting just the actual sex.
Exactly right. I don't pick my friends based on their sexual
preferences. In point of fact, I wouldn't know if any of my friends
were gay, if it didn't come up in conversation. This is why I find
some of the 'fag hags' rather amusing. On the one hand, they would
pillory anyone who proclaimed that they would not associate with gays
BECAUSE they are gays. On the other hand, they themselves prefer gays
BECAUSE they are gay (for true 'fag hags').
Fred McCall
:Sorry to disagree, but homophobic is the right word here. Just
:because you don't find something to your personal taste does not mean
:you should be disgusted.
And who the hell are you to be telling people what they 'should' feel?
:There are a lot of activities involved in
:*NO* homosexual sex that some people find are not to their personal
:tastes. They *Do Not Like* these things.
They are even sometimes DISGUSTED when presented with these things.
:If something disgutsd you
:because it is not something you would want to do, then your feelings
:go beyond the normal "I don't agree with that sort of thing", and
:border on something more ominous.
Horseshit.
:Anyone who can honestly saame and
:mean that they find homosexuality disguting has serious homophobic
:tendancies.
You need to learn to read.
Fred McCall
:Anyhoos, Katie (my co-worker) was telling me about an American who'd
:come over for business reasons and Katie and friends wanted to take a
:smoke break. So they turned to the American and said "let's go have a
:fag" Talk about confusion! LOL
Actually, the word 'fag' USED to be commonly used for cigarettes in
this country, as well. I'm not sure quite when that changed.
Presumably it changed to avoid some of the more militant gays from
thinking people were talking about immolating homosexuals when they
used the phrase "smoking a fag".
[Yes, that's humour, people.]
Fred McCall
:Fred McCall (f...@onramp.net) wrote:
:: rg...@odyssee.net () wrote:
:: :I cannot understand why some people find something "distasteful" just
:: :because it is not from their point of view. (i.e. hetrosexual).
:
:: And I cannot understand why some people seem to feel that there is
:: something wrong with others expressing their opinions about some
:: things in books, just because the particular 'thing' happens to be
:: some activist issue.
:
:I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but we may certainly feel
:equally free to disagree and criticize as strongly as you. This is a
:forum for discussion, is it not?
True, but the problem is that you are NOT doing the same thing. One
person is criticizing a book (which is the topic of the newsgroup).
The other is criticizing the opinion of the first and insisting that
they have no right to express it.
I've always found it interesting when people insist they have the
right to tell someone they aren't entitled to express their opinion
because, after all, we're all entitled to express our opinions. This
is becoming more and more common among certain schools of fascist (on
both ends of the political spectrum).
:: Well, the point sort of is that when one picks up a book about
:: vampires, one knows that one is getting a book where the main theme is
:: vampires. I don't think that Anne considers her books to be primarily
:: 'gay fiction', although a lot of the "then you shouldn't read them"
:: types seem to feel that way.
:
:_Cry to Heaven_, however, isn't about Vampires. It's about Castrati
:singers. The sex involved in the work was relevant.
You need to go back and read my response to the original article that
started this thread.
Just by the way, I haven't read _Cry to Heaven_, as my interest in
stories about castrated men is, shall we say, strictly limited. I
responded to the original comment because it was a comment about Anne
Rice books doing something in general, not just about _Cry to Heaven_.
:Your mileage may vary, but you can still skip over it if it "disgusts" you.
Which is what I do, but it breaks the 'flow' of the book to have to do
that, which is why *I* consider it a flaw. You can consider it
whatever you like. If, however, what you elect to consider is that
people who disagree with you are not allowed to express opinions, why,
then you can just go perform some anatomically creative act with
yourself.
I trust this clarifies things.
The Thing
> kralary <kra...@postoffice.pbinet.com> wrote:
>
> :You were right 100% in your belief.
> : I also agree with the idea that "equal rights" should not be different
> :for some groups and not others just by the very definition. (The two,
> :however, are different topics and one should not influence the other.)
> :Having said that, I do not agree with your statement that "gays have the
> :same marriage rights that I do." You qualified your statement by saying
> :"they can marry any single member of the biologically opposite sex who
> :will have them, who is old enough, and who is not too closely related."
> : Agreed. They can in the "I believe and am committed if you are" sense.
> : They cannot marry and have it recognized by law. That is a right that
> :you and I have and same gendered marriages do not at this point in time.
>
> But that's the point. I can't 'marry' someone of the same sex as I
> am. Neither can gays. We have the same rights in this regard. There
> are people who I could not marry, no matter how much I might want to.
> This category includes people who are under age, people who are
> already married, people who are too closely related to me, and people
> who are the same sex as me. Gays have the same restrictions. This is
> 'equal'.
Yes, and if the restriction against gay marriage was lifted, EVERYONE
would be able to marry anyone of whatever sex they wished who was of age,
not already married, and not too closely related. Things would still be
equal.
> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
+----Catherine Johnson -------------- c...@flamestrike.hacks.arizona.edu----+
Lisa DaFoe
>
> Exactly right. I don't pick my friends based on their sexual
> preferences. In point of fact, I wouldn't know if any of my friends
> were gay, if it didn't come up in conversation. This is why I find
> some of the 'fag hags' rather amusing. On the one hand, they would
> pillory anyone who proclaimed that they would not associate with gays
> BECAUSE they are gays. On the other hand, they themselves prefer gays
> BECAUSE they are gay (for true 'fag hags').
Jumping into the fray. As a card-carrying fag hag, I can't state that
this is ridiculous. I don't pick my friends because they are gay. I grew
up with a guy who I later found out was gay. He was, and is, one of my
closest friends. Through him, I met other gay men. Now I can't speak for
other members of the sisterhood, but I'd be willing to bet that this is
how it happened for most of them, as well.
Or maybe, in your eyes, I'm not a "true fag-hag."
--
Lisa lda...@worldnet.att.net
DFW International A.B.A.R.--Where the women are women
XAngst Anonymous and the men are horny vampires.
Another Bleepin' X-Phile
Lady
>From: Memi <sof...@geo.haifa.ac.il>
>Subject: Re: Distasteful sex in Cry To Heaven
>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:08:30 GMT
>Dear friends
>I only posted this in the first place just because it bothered me that a
>fine research of the male eunuchs in the 18th century is being degraded
>and is unpleasant for the massive gay sex scenes in it. correct me if
>I'm wrong but I believe that a much bigger amount of gay scenes have
>been included in this book than in Anne's other books.
>Memi
Memi, you know how the tangents go around here. Personally, I didn't really
think about more or less "sex scenes". All were appropriate to the theme as
far as I thought. I think the characters led such a sad life that they sought
pleasure when and wherever they could. Secondly, consider if the scenes you
mention were heterosexual, would you still consider them excessive? In the
witches series there were a number of sex scenes with Mona and Michael that
were pretty graphic; however, the Vampire wouldn't and doesn't have them
because vampires don't have sex. Just my thoughts.
Lady
Wendamatica
> only one of them is gay, that one will be the one I befriend. Before I
> even *know*. It just is.
> Stephanie
It must be a chromosome thing; same goes for me. I'll go so far as to
say that there could be 99 heterosexual men and one homosexual and I'll
get the crush--from across the room even--on the gay guy 9 times out of
10. In my world, it's a law or something.
Wendy, Wendamatica XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX myth...@cts.com
Ruler of the Jellybean (Except Black Ones Because They Taste Like Bug Blood)
A.B.A-R: Where the women are women and the men are horny vampires
S. Olmstead-Dean
: Jumping into the fray. As a card-carrying fag hag, I can't state that
: this is ridiculous. I don't pick my friends because they are gay. I grew
: up with a guy who I later found out was gay. He was, and is, one of my
: closest friends. Through him, I met other gay men. Now I can't speak for
: other members of the sisterhood, but I'd be willing to bet that this is
: how it happened for most of them, as well.
: Or maybe, in your eyes, I'm not a "true fag-hag."
Darlin' dear, fag-hagdom just happens. If there are 10 men around, and
only one of them is gay, that one will be the one I befriend. Before I
even *know*. It just is.
Most of the gay men I know don't know one another. But gawd, I know a
zillion. Well, okay, I am maybe exaggerating, as I don't know a zillion
people total, but a decent percentage of my close male friends are gay.
Go figure. :)
Stephanie
S. Olmstead-Dean
: True, but the problem is that you are NOT doing the same thing. One
: person is criticizing a book (which is the topic of the newsgroup).
: The other is criticizing the opinion of the first and insisting that
: they have no right to express it.
Excuse me, but *you* are the one so succinctly calling others' opinions
"horseshit."
Your need to post at least 5 responses per day tells me you badly need a
hobby. Your defensive reaction to homosexuality tells me something
else.
But of course, this is entirely off topic. Perhaps you can explain why
you do read Anne Rice's work? What about it interests you?
Stephanie
Fred McCall
:Wendamatica <myth...@cts.com> wrote:
:>So what do we call hetero
:>guys with a yen for gay women? A bag of black jellybeans to the first
:>one with a decent response.
:
:Someone not getting any. ;)
:
:dyke mikes?
The Dutch Boy Brigade?
gry...@iaehv.nl
Lisa DaFoe <lda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Jumping into the fray. As a card-carrying fag hag, I can't state that
>this is ridiculous. I don't pick my friends because they are gay. I grew
>up with a guy who I later found out was gay. He was, and is, one of my
>closest friends. Through him, I met other gay men.
It kind of happened to me this way too.
I suppose it's because it's easier to be befriended with a gay male
when you're unattached. As they aren't interested in a relation with
you they don't make you feel like being hunted at.
It's very annoying to be unable to go out because half the men you
know are intent on lure you into their beds since you are alone.
If you hang out with gays a lot that has the advantage of driving
the more annoying, and insistent, types away. They typically melt
away after being leered at by your gay companions :)
*giggle* That alone is a good reason to hang out with gays :) :)
marian
Fred McCall
:Fred McCall wrote:
:>
:> This is why I find
:> some of the 'fag hags' rather amusing. On the one hand, they would
:> pillory anyone who proclaimed that they would not associate with gays
:> BECAUSE they are gays. On the other hand, they themselves prefer gays
:> BECAUSE they are gay (for true 'fag hags').
:
:Jumping into the fray. As a card-carrying fag hag, I can't state that
:this is ridiculous. I don't pick my friends because they are gay. I grew
:up with a guy who I later found out was gay. He was, and is, one of my
:closest friends. Through him, I met other gay men. Now I can't speak for
:other members of the sisterhood, but I'd be willing to bet that this is
:how it happened for most of them, as well.
But just having gay friends doesn't make you a 'fag hag'. It all
depends on just who you spend most of your time with. Real 'fag hags'
are *fascinated* by gay men, seek them out, and spend most of their
time associating with them preferentially. That's not something one
just 'falls into'.
Fred McCall
:Darlin' dear, fag-hagdom just happens. If there are 10 men around, and
:only one of them is gay, that one will be the one I befriend. Before I
:even *know*. It just is.
So, why do you think that is? Merely strange karma? Either that or
gays are wrong that they can't be identified unless they tell you and
you are picking them out. Consistently running against the odds like
that doesn't (just happen).
Well, let me clarify just a bit. It doesn't 'just happen' unless you
live in one of those parts of the country with high concentrations of
gay men. For some reason (probably a lack of competition), many of
those places seem to also be places where the typical 'straight' man
is a major schmuck.
:Most of the gay men I know don't know one another. But gawd, I know a
:zillion. Well, okay, I am maybe exaggerating, as I don't know a zillion
:people total, but a decent percentage of my close male friends are gay.
And you think that this happens by accident? Seems unlikely.
Subconscious selection, anyone?
RubyEuropa
>Actually, the word 'fag' USED to be commonly used for cigarettes in
>this country, as well. I'm not sure quite when that changed.
>Presumably it changed to avoid some of the more militant gays from
>thinking people were talking about immolating homosexuals when they
>used the phrase "smoking a fag".
>[Yes, that's humour, people.]
I can't keep up with the "correct" words anymore. In my hometown, the
board of education has practically re-written the dictionary. It's
ludicrous some of the "new" words they've coined. All this reminds me
of that John Cougar Mellancamp song - can't remember the title but
some of the lyrics are "that's when a spoke was a spoke, and groovin'
was groovin'" Anyone remember the title of that song?
Ruby