Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

gay shame. gay pride. criticize contemporary gay politics and challenge current definitions and practices of "gay pride"

1 view
Skip to first unread message

thezak

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 8:30:42 AM6/14/09
to
gay shame. gay pride.
criticize contemporary gay politics and
challenge current definitions and practices of "gay pride"
http://www.gayshamesf.org/about.html#academia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_shame
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gay+shame%22
http://www.umich.edu/~lgqri/gayshame.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fl70HgAACAAJ
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/176978854

alien8er

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 6:36:47 PM6/14/09
to

So this got me thinking about one of the cornerstones of kibology,
that no matter who or what you are (unless you're Spot or Xibo),
you're Allowed.

Allowed means Not Prohibited.

Prohibited means somebody thinks they have the right to decide
whether or not to Allow somebody else to do something.

Not being gay I'm probably missing some of the finer nuances of all
this stuff, but isn't the point of Gay Shame that nobody, including
other gays, has the right to tell gays that they can be gay in public
AS LONG AS they do it in an Allowed fashion i.e. in Allowed clothing
and Allowed ranges of behavior (no flamboyant drama) and so on?

I guess what I'm talking about is this:

Are Gay Shame and kibology compatible? Gay shame appears to be
kibological, at least from the viewpoint of Gay Priders.

Wait, I think it depends on whether Spot and/or Xibo are gay, and I
don't have that information.

So many questions, so few answers.


Dr. HotSalt

David DeLaney

unread,
Jun 14, 2009, 10:36:23 PM6/14/09
to
alien8er <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not being gay I'm probably missing some of the finer nuances of all
>this stuff, but isn't the point of Gay Shame that nobody, including
>other gays, has the right to tell gays that they can be gay in public
>AS LONG AS they do it in an Allowed fashion i.e. in Allowed clothing
>and Allowed ranges of behavior (no flamboyant drama) and so on?
>
> I guess what I'm talking about is this:
>
> Are Gay Shame and kibology compatible? Gay shame appears to be
>kibological, at least from the viewpoint of Gay Priders.

Gay glee is. Gay shame is only if there's no actual shame involved. (And
sometimes there isn't.)

> Wait, I think it depends on whether Spot and/or Xibo are gay, and I
>don't have that information.

Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on Albert
Einstein, of course.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

rone

unread,
Jun 15, 2009, 1:20:00 PM6/15/09
to
In article <slrnh3bnn...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on Albert
>Einstein, of course.

Hey, who doesn't?

rone
arf arf arf
--
MIS EN BOUTEILLE AU DOMAINE <ro...@ennui.org>

Tim Serpas

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 2:00:16 PM6/16/09
to
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on Albert
>Einstein, of course.

Puppy love?

W

David DeLaney

unread,
Jun 16, 2009, 7:08:32 PM6/16/09
to

Well, who DOESN'T crush on Albert?

Dave "his Ricci indexes are so DREEEEAMY" DeLaney

PS: waves to s.m

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 6:03:03 AM6/17/09
to
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:

>Tim Serpas <wre...@eris.io.com> wrote:
>>David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on Albert
>>>Einstein, of course.
>>
>>Puppy love?
>
>Well, who DOESN'T crush on Albert?
>
>Dave "his Ricci indexes are so DREEEEAMY" DeLaney
>
>PS: waves to s.m

Oh, sure, you say "waves" today, but we *know* it'll be all "particles"
tomorrow.

Lee Rudolph

Otto Bahn

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:08:29 AM6/17/09
to
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote

>>>>Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on Albert
>>>>Einstein, of course.
>>>
>>>Puppy love?
>>
>>Well, who DOESN'T crush on Albert?
>>
>>Dave "his Ricci indexes are so DREEEEAMY" DeLaney
>>
>>PS: waves to s.m
>
> Oh, sure, you say "waves" today, but we *know* it'll be all "particles"
> tomorrow.

Bisexuals do muddy the water.

--oTTo--


David Weinshenker

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 11:48:46 AM6/17/09
to
Otto Bahn wrote in soc.bi:

We do?

-dave w

rone

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 12:01:49 PM6/17/09
to
In article <MM6dnRq3GqVvkqTX...@earthlink.com>,

>>>>> Puppy love?

>We do?

Only if you're doing it right.

rone

Otto Bahn

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 12:51:30 PM6/17/09
to
"rone" <^*&#$@ennui.org> wrote

>>>>>>> Spot is straight but inexperienced. Except that he has a dog-crush on
>>>>>>> Albert Einstein, of course.
>
>>>>>> Puppy love?
>
>>>>> Well, who DOESN'T crush on Albert?
>>>>> Dave "his Ricci indexes are so DREEEEAMY" DeLaney
>>>>> PS: waves to s.m
>
>>>> Oh, sure, you say "waves" today, but we *know* it'll be all "particles"
>>>> tomorrow.
>
>>> Bisexuals do muddy the water.
>
>>We do?
>
> Only if you're doing it right.

And if your doing it left, you wouldn't be doing it at all.

--oTTo--


Lee Rudolph

unread,
Jun 17, 2009, 2:58:16 PM6/17/09
to
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:

"My momma told me that if I kept doing that, I'd be a statistic.
But she didn't specify Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac!"

Lee Rudolph

0 new messages