Recent Events from the Horseman
The_Horseman
The first thing was that it was my privilege to visit the local
emergency room. No, no play stories that went wrong--I was rollerblading and
fell on my ass and heard something in my neck make a nasty *snap*. I walked
the rest of the way.
My slave suggested we go to the hospital, and I did. There, once they
heard it was a neck injury, they decided to immobilize me. I protested that I
had walked two miles, driven a car, and typed on a computer all after the
injury. No matter. Your Humble Narrator was strapped to a backboard and
placed in a cervical brace. I've *got* to get one of these for Ariel.
Then, quite simply, I was abandoned. Left for 20 minutes all by
myself, staring up at the wall. It would have been longer, except I heard a
blood-curdling scream and decided after a while to make the hospital a cheerier
place. So I decided to sing. The song for the night's recital was
'Decomposing Composers', by Monty Python. Volume got progressively louder as I
realized no one was paying attention to me.
Well, I learned that hospital types must have certain toppish aspects.
Blood-curdling screams are OK; singing is not. A large woman who looked angry
enough to tear my head from my body rushed in and ordered me, in no uncertain
terms, to stop singing. Since I was strapped to a board, I decided obedience
might be the best alternative.
To stop me from singing again, they sent me to X-Ray. These people
have no humor at all. I asked for a copy of one X-ray they took of my head,
with my jaw stretched wide open. They refused. I'd think a skull with its
jaws open would be an interesting addition to a dungeon. But no.
The second thing is a local gay rights march, which I decided to take
part in. It was interesting. While we were waiting for people to show up,
there was a young woman who walked up to me and said, "I don't know you. Are
you out?" Aha, here is a young woman who does not grasp the concept of
gay-affirmative hets. I couldn't resist. With tongue firmly in cheek, I said,
"Yes."
"How long have you been out?"
"Oh, a very long time," I answered.
She proceeded to ask if I was a member of certain groups. I said no.
She did not seem to get it. Finally, I explained that I was het and supported
gay rights. She seemed surpised and asked me why. I explained that I, too,
was a member of a sexual minority, namely, BDSM. She kind of paled and made a
few comments which led me to believe she didn't like the idea. I asked her
just why it was that the BDSM crowd shouldn't be tolerated by her, when she was
asking for tolerance from people who 1) weren't homosexual and 2) for whom
homosexuality might well conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. I think
overall I made my point, since luckily, I was well informed enough to deflect
most of her arguments. (Which, IMHO, are as weakly based as the
'anti-homosexual' arguments.) Perhaps we will have a new poster to asb; more
likely a lurker.
The march was...interesting. Owing to well, frankly, shitty weather,
there wasn't much of a turnout. That was understandable, I guess. WHat I
wondered really about were the people who pressed their faces against the
windows of the various dorms we passed. What were they thinking? That we were
nuts? Wondering if we were accessible to talk to? Wondering what we stood for?
I noticed that particular chants seemed to be winners and others losers.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, homophobia's got to go!" seemed to be a winner, since it was
an idea that everyone could espouse. "Two four six eight, how do you know
you're roommate's straight?" was another winner. "However we dress, wherever
we go, we're here, we're queer, you never know" seemed to be a loser, since
most hets on the march didn't join in with it for obvious reasons. To those
lesbigays out there: Don't be insulted if hets on a march won't chant one like
this. It's not that we're not gay-affirmative, but to state you're something
you're not is pretty silly, as I suspect most people who have spent time in the
closet will agree.
Afterwards was a speak out with open mike. Your Humble Narrator made a
brief speech which I will attempt to reproduce here for the benefit of asb'ers
who have read long enough.
"Can you hear me? [Yes repeated several times from members of the
march.] Well, I'm a heterosexual, and that means that in the eyes of some, I'm
more qualified, or somehow better, to raise kids, live in an apartment, or have
a job, or have custody of my kids if I should divorce, than some of you, and 23
million Americans across this country. I haven't ever been able to find any
sort of sensible basis for this superiority, and I don't want it.
As for people who don't think gay rights is their issue, I have a
suggestion for these people. I think we ought to buy them a plane ticket to
Germany, and let them see Dachau concentration camp, where I visited this
summer. Let them see the blouse with the pink triangle that was worn by
someone for the crime of being who they were, and not hurting anyone else. I
think that'll change them, because it certainly changed me."
Hardly the Gettsyburg Address. But I felt *damn good* after saying
those words. An aftereffect of reading Charles Haynes' words led me to wonder
if I hadn't been wrong to announce that I was heterosexual. But I was doing it
to prove a point, and I asked several people, all of whom found no offense in
my doing so and in fact applauded me for letting them know there were such
people out there. Made me feel better, at any rate. I wonder how the
campus newspapers are going to quote me. If they claim I said all intolerant
people ought to be sent to Dachau, I'm going to be less than pleased. Well, if
I am misquoted, I'm going to write an extremely nasty letter to the editor.
And yes, I do think that the newspaper might do this, as they've done things
before like this.
And I've got to wonder. Some people openly identified themselves as
lesbigay; there is obviously a place in the gay rights movement for them. But
I felt weird stating I was a gay-affirmative het. I felt like an interloper
somehow; like some people out there might prefer a gay rights movement of
lesbigay v. straight. And well, I don't like that...I've used the brains that
are in my head to make my own choice, and I've decided that there isn't any
logical reason for the fact that I can yank some girl off the street, say
"Let's get married", and with her approval, attain legal recognition as a
family while gay couples who have been together since before I was born can't.
[And yes, I'm at the age where this is quite within the realm of possibility.]
So topazzz's post appreciating gay-affirmative hets was a great help for me;
and I can only urge the other lesbigay posters, if they see someone in a gay
rights march or similar situations, to show appreciation for them and what they
are doing; today a lesbian woman who was there thanked me for speaking at the
march. It made me feel a lot better. And trust me, the GAH's who you express
your appreciation to will appreciate it back; it's one thing to fight for your
own rights and another to fight for someone else's when yours are already
assured.
It took a while to digest all this. I know this is probably a
coredump, which is my first on asb. Sorry, but I just had to get this out.
If there's anyone out there who wants to talk about this, hey, type 'reply' or
'r' now. I can take it. But I hadda tell somebody.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Roy S Rapoport
people who had sex with MOTSS. Guess it's time to revise that.
Nice post, TH.
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
"Actually, it's sort of kinky. I feel like a gay medieval nazi."
_Castle_Perilous_
--
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
"Actually, it's sort of kinky. I feel like a gay medieval nazi."
_Castle_Perilous_
El Dopa
a gay pride march]
I'm glad that Horseman realizes how important it is for people to
know that there ARE straights out there who support gay rights. It's
kind of scary, though, how fine the line can be (or how much disagreement
can arise over) the difference between calling yourself a "straight
supporter" and being (as the term has been coined) a heterostxist.
I am a member of Brandeis's gay/les/bi/straight supporter/anyone
who wants to talk with us group. I run what we call "dorm raps". What
these consist of is two people going to a mostly freshman hall during
their weekly "muchies" meeting to discuss homophobia, queerness, and to
answer any questions that the students might have. At the dorm rap that
I did this week a question was raised. The person that I was with had
given, as an example of subtle homophobia, someone wearing a "Straight but
not narrow" T-shirt to a pride march. Her problem with this was the
fact that we KNOW that this person is a supporter of gay rights, since
he's at the march, so why is there a need to tell people that he's
straight? My opinion is that there is a need for homophobes to know that
there ARE straights who support gay rights because, as Horseman said,
it takes a somewhat different (and IMO stronger) principle to stand up
for the rights of someone else when your own rights are assured.
Anyway, to make a long story short, this got argued for quite a bit
and I was wondering what people here thought about it. Where does on
draw the line between healthy support and the subtle homophobia of "I don't
have anything against gays, but I'M straight."?
On a related note, I'm always amazed by another phenomenon of doing
these dorm raps. Depending on the situation and the mood and the person
I'm with, we might not tell the people on the hall we're visiting anything
about ourselves. At one dorm rap where this was the case (we had told
them our names and our year and that's it) when we asked for questions,
someone asked us if we had come out to our parents. I pointed out that
neither one of us had said that we were queer and the people seemed a bit
surprised at the idea that we might not be. Apparently, this is not an
uncommon occurrance at the dorm raps, either. This is a large part of the
reason that I feel straight supporters need to identify themselves as such
(in certain contexts).
Anyway, I figured that since the topic was brought up, I might as
well share my views. That's my $0.02.
-Matt (now, look carfully through this post.
What's my orientation?)
The_Horseman
st92...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (El Dopa) quoth:
>[The_Horseman talks about his experience being a pro-gay straight at
>a gay pride march]
>I'm glad that Horseman realizes how important it is for people to
>know that there ARE straights out there who support gay rights. It's
>kind of scary, though, how fine the line can be (or how much disagreement
>can arise over) the difference between calling yourself a "straight
>supporter" and being (as the term has been coined) a heterostxist.
Well, it's also in the eye of the beholder, I think. As we asb'ers saw
from the 'Nuance and homophobia' thread, one person's 'straight supporter' is
another man's 'heterosexist'.
>answer any questions that the students might have. At the dorm rap that
>I did this week a question was raised. The person that I was with had
>given, as an example of subtle homophobia, someone wearing a "Straight but
>not narrow" T-shirt to a pride march. Her problem with this was the
>fact that we KNOW that this person is a supporter of gay rights, since
>he's at the march, so why is there a need to tell people that he's
>straight? My opinion is that there is a need for homophobes to know that
>there ARE straights who support gay rights because, as Horseman said,
>it takes a somewhat different (and IMO stronger) principle to stand up
>for the rights of someone else when your own rights are assured.
Well, thank you. I doubt the case of the T-Shirt was intended as
homophobic. First of all, there are usually a few lesbigays at a march wearing
t-shirts or buttons or carrying signs saying "Gay and Proud of It" or similar
things. Why is there a need to tell people that they're les/bi/gay (as the
case may be.)? Also, it's possible the person wears the shirt in non-march
space. Wearing it could have been his way of 'psyching himself up', sort of
like fearless freep's saying he wore a silk shirt and leather pants at a con,
just to get into the spirit of things.
>Anyway, to make a long story short, this got argued for quite a bit
>and I was wondering what people here thought about it. Where does on
>draw the line between healthy support and the subtle homophobia of "I don't
>have anything against gays, but I'M straight."?
Here's a litmus test...do the people in the latter case actually attend
gay pride marches? And I think 'heterosexism' is the proper term here--I
hardly think that being het yourself is subtly homophobic. I'd say healthy
support is getting up off your butt and DOING something--to quote Jahwar (I'm
just quoting *everyone* today) "It's easier to sit back and snipe rather than
actually do something." [paraphrased].
I'd say that not only homophobes ought to know of the existence of
gay-affirmative hets but everyone ought to. I think lesbigays would be somewhat
comforted to know that there are hets out there who support them. "Straight
but not narrow" is not what I'd call homophobic or heterosexist. I'd equate it
to 'White but not racist'. Of course, saying 'white but not racist' is kind of
superfluous since you can usually tell the difference visually. Not so with
the various orientations. A T-shirt with 'Straight and Proud of It' might be
heterosexist to some but not to others. But to say that you're straight but
not narrow isn't heterosexist, IMHO.
>someone asked us if we had come out to our parents. I pointed out that
>neither one of us had said that we were queer and the people seemed a bit
>surprised at the idea that we might not be. Apparently, this is not an
>uncommon occurrance at the dorm raps, either. This is a large part of the
>reason that I feel straight supporters need to identify themselves as such
>(in certain contexts).
That's probably part of it. It's frustrating to have people believe
that the combination of heterosexuality and the choice to support gay rights is
somehow invalid. And I've stated other reasons above.
>-Matt (now, look carfully through this post.
>What's my orientation?)
*grin* This is Internet, Matt. In this context your orientation
doesn't matter, only what you have to say.
Roy S Rapoport
in such events brings up some issues.
Frankly, I know quite a few queers who are uncomfortable with the concept of
hets coming to our marches and wearing things that will identify them as het
(such as 'straight but not narrow' buttons). To some of us (and me, in my
more paranoid days :) ), it seems like you're willing to support us (which
is great), but you're not willing to take the risk that *gasp* someone might
think you're actually a faggot/dyke, or because you're worried some queer
person might hit on you (*yuck*). True, we proudly proclaim our
orientation, but after all this is our march, about queer rights.
There are two more sides to it though; phobes need to know that
heterosexuals support us also; also, I've known heterosexuals who wore
identifying marks because they were concerned that a MOTSS would hit on them
and just felt bad about having to turn them down; the daughter of a gay man
I know is one such person; these motivations are far more honorable, in my
mind, than the "God, I hope no MOTSS hits on me" motivations above.
I don't know if there's any right answer to whether or not hets should say
they're het during marches; I suspect that Horsey's solution of not wearing
identifying marks of either sort but identifying himself as het during the
speech is one of the better solutions I can think of.
-roy "I like being fucked by men, but I'm not a faggot or anything" Rapoport
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
"Gay life without the sex is a theme park." - Andrew Holleran
Gilgamesh
>Gilgamesh <baph...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> wrote:
>
>->I don't see what's so awful about not wanting to be identified as gay if you
>->are not, in fact, gay, or not wanting to be hit on by people who you do not,
>->in principle, consider sexually attractive. I am not Christian, nor am I a
>
>It's a bit hard to explain why I find the concept a little discomforting.
>
>I suppose that I don't particularly want to be hit on by people who I do
>not, in principle, consider sexually attractive, such as, such as ... umm,
>give me a second. Ah, got it : butch gay men with a Nazi fetish. It's not
>because I have anything against butch gay men with a nazi fetish, it's just
>that, well, I can't imagine doing anything with a BGMWANF (pronounce:
>Biggemwanf), so it's a waste of time. On the other hand, it's no big deal.
>If a Biggemwanf hits on me (*sigh* so few gay men hit on me), I could always
>say I'm not interested (or not :) ). I don't think of it in the same way
>I've seen some hets think of being hit by MOTSS -- "Eww, yuck! God, I hope
>no men hits on me, that would make me feel so uncomfortable!"
>
>I don't know if being revulsed by being hit on by a MOTSS is a symptom of
>homophobia (and I really don't want to start the "you're
>homophobic/heterosexist," "no I'm not. Prove to me that I am." debate of
>old), but it's not something I personally am comfortable with in a friend;
>it's not a quality that would be conducive to my friendship with anyone. A
>heterosexual friend of mine (possibly my best friend) was pretty
>aggressively hit on by a gay male friend I have (more aggressively than I
>found comfortable); as he put it, "I could either take it as a compliment or
>be disgusted, and it seems much more fun to take it as a compliment"; the
>said gay friend has been hit on by women (he is very handsome), and he's
>always dealt with it with humor and gentleness. These are qualities I look
>for in my friends.
I agree here -- this makes a lot of sense. I *personally* would want my
friends to treat the desires of others with respect and gentleness. However,
I think it's possible for someone, for example, to be repulsed by the idea
of homosexual sex and yet decline a come-on with great gentleness. Many
people find the idea of eating bugs to be completely disgusting, and yet
they have no personal problem with the many people throughout the world
who eat live bugs as a delicacy. They can be *personally* repulsed by the
idea, and yet fully understand why those people do it, fully honor their
right to do it, and respect those people AS people.
A bigot, on the other hand, would fire a perfectly competent employee for
being a "bug eater," or would be insulting and disrespectful to a person who
eats bugs, or might even go out with the boys and beat up a few bug eaters.
There is, I think, a big difference between being personally repulsed by
something and being bigoted against those who do it -- although I do think
that people who are repulsed by gay sex need to take extra care to make sure
they don't cross the line.
>->Satanist, nor am I a watchmaker, and I would not want to be falsely identified
>->as any of those things, and while I might attend a Satanist ritual out of
>->curiousity, I am not particularly interested in any attempts to convert me.
>->Same goes for Christians and watchmakers -- without any desire to offend them,
>->I do not wish to be falsely identified as one of them nor do I wish to be
>->invited to their meetings or be a target of a conversion attempt.
>
>You might push some buttons for some queers out here who have heard, over
>andover again, of how we wish to 'convert' heterosexuals (which in my case
>is true in the case of a few select heterosexuals, but not true with regards
>to hets as a class :) ). The point is that nobody's trying to convert you,
>but it does seem a little strange to me that you would insist so much to
>make sure everyone knows you don't belong in a group whose goals you
>support, whose march you're marching in, whose agenda you believe in.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone there. I didn't mean to suggest that gays as
a class are trying to convert hets as a class. In fact, I am bisexual, so I
don't need to be converted! ;)
>->Um...I see your point here. But I think it is not homophobic for someone to
>->frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
>->and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
>
>Y'know, you got me there. My first impulse is to say that if you are
>_repulsed_ by the idea of two MOTSS making love, it may be questionable that
>you are indeed not homophobic; I suspect some would find the repulsion to be
>indicative of some narrow-mindedness.
>
>I don't know. I suspect that it's a bit more complicated than that, because
>these days it's not an issue of respecting my right to make love to a man;
>it's an issue of equal rights, of a right to be protected from
>discrimination in our jobs, our homes, our communities, our society. I've
>seen phobes (and please don't think I'm referring to you here; I don't know
>enough of you to think that you're a phobe) who technically agreed with what
>you said above -- "I don't have anything against queers as long as what they
>do stays within the bedroom as it should." These phobes usually are the
>ones who have the problem with MOTSS kissing in public, or holding hands, or
>dancing together, or embracing each other.
Hmmmm. Being of a rather Libertarian political persuasion, I do not feel that
there should be any legal protection against private discrimination, whether
on the basis of religion, political philosophy, gender, sexual orientation,
you name it (although I do believe that there should be legal protection
against *government* discrimination). On the other hand, I would vehemently
oppose any business that discriminated on any non-job-related basis. I
would almost certainly boycott such a business, and would strongly consider
picketing it and taking other action detrimental and hurtful (within legal
boundaries) to such a business. I strongly and vehemently oppose
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and yet I would support
its legality in the private sector (just as I support the legality of many
things I do not personally approve of).
Now -- am I a homophobe? Or am I someone who merely disagrees with you on a
point of political philosophy? :) You may consider it a very important point
of political philosophy -- I certainly do -- but it is motivated from
principle, not hate of any kind. In the same way, I attribute the best
possible motives to you: I assume the source of your disagreement is
compassion, not a desire to repress free enterprise and take away the
hard-earned liberties of those who through their own hard work and with their
own money started a business. ;)
If we bandy the word "homophobe" about too loosely, it loses its meaning. I
do not think a homophobe is one who deviates from the "revealed truth" of the
gay lobby, nor one who finds homosexual sex repulsive. I do think that a
homophobe is -- well, a homo phobe, who who fears and hates gays and lesbians,
one who does not respect those who behave differently, one who feels that his
or her moral standards are the legitimate measure by which the world should
be judged. It is not particular beliefs, IMO, so much as broad attitudes
that make a homophobe...
Thoth@IRC
Mattison
>This discussion of hets participating in queer events and how they identify
>in such events brings up some issues.
[Much of a very good article deleted.]
The when or if to make my het orientation know when supporting
lesbigay rights has often been a concern of mine. When I first began
speaking out for lesbigay rights, I often found myself saying "And I'm
heterosexual" very early in any discourse.
I never did it consciously, but it was a consistent behavior. A
lesbian friend of mine had noticed this, and challenged me on it. At
the time I justified myself that it was just part of my argument.
Some phobe would claim to speak for all heterosexuals, so I would feel
it necessary to say otherwise.
Later however, I started doing some thinking. And found that to some
extent, I did appear to go out of my way to put in the "I'm straight"
line. As a result, I started making a point to not mention my
orientation. It was an interesting experiment.
I hadn't realized how strong my motivation to make the orientation
disclaimer was. I continued to keep my orientation out of discussion
for quite a while. After a while, however, the fear factor goes. I
had enough people walk away maybe thinking I was gay, that I no longer
cared.
It is not unlike how some of my lesbigay friends have described the
experience of coming out. You find yourself free of fear. The
threat of being called gay just disappears. These days being called
gay just makes me laugh.
As for the subject line, I've always preferred to say "just cause I'm
straight, doesn't mean I'm not warped."
***********************************************************
* Mattison (Matt) Narramore j...@gandalf.rutgers.edu *
* I'm my own evil twin, accept no substitute. *
***********************************************************
Gilgamesh
>This discussion of hets participating in queer events and how they identify
>in such events brings up some issues.
>
>Frankly, I know quite a few queers who are uncomfortable with the concept of
>hets coming to our marches and wearing things that will identify them as het
>(such as 'straight but not narrow' buttons). To some of us (and me, in my
>more paranoid days :) ), it seems like you're willing to support us (which
>is great), but you're not willing to take the risk that *gasp* someone might
>think you're actually a faggot/dyke, or because you're worried some queer
>person might hit on you (*yuck*).
I don't see what's so awful about not wanting to be identified as gay if you
are not, in fact, gay, or not wanting to be hit on by people who you do not,
in principle, consider sexually attractive. I am not Christian, nor am I a
Satanist, nor am I a watchmaker, and I would not want to be falsely identified
as any of those things, and while I might attend a Satanist ritual out of
curiousity, I am not particularly interested in any attempts to convert me.
Same goes for Christians and watchmakers -- without any desire to offend them,
I do not wish to be falsely identified as one of them nor do I wish to be
invited to their meetings or be a target of a conversion attempt.
Does that make sense?
>True, we proudly proclaim our
>orientation, but after all this is our march, about queer rights.
Sure it is. And in my opinion you have a right to exclude people from your
march who identify themselves as "not gay" -- it just seems a little silly to
me to do so.
>There are two more sides to it though; phobes need to know that
>heterosexuals support us also; also, I've known heterosexuals who wore
>identifying marks because they were concerned that a MOTSS would hit on them
>and just felt bad about having to turn them down; the daughter of a gay man
>I know is one such person; these motivations are far more honorable, in my
>mind, than the "God, I hope no MOTSS hits on me" motivations above.
Um...I see your point here. But I think it is not homophobic for someone to
frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
Thoth@IRC
Roy S Rapoport
->Satanist, nor am I a watchmaker, and I would not want to be falsely identified
->as any of those things, and while I might attend a Satanist ritual out of
->curiousity, I am not particularly interested in any attempts to convert me.
->Same goes for Christians and watchmakers -- without any desire to offend them,
->I do not wish to be falsely identified as one of them nor do I wish to be
->invited to their meetings or be a target of a conversion attempt.
You might push some buttons for some queers out here who have heard, over
andover again, of how we wish to 'convert' heterosexuals (which in my case
is true in the case of a few select heterosexuals, but not true with regards
to hets as a class :) ). The point is that nobody's trying to convert you,
but it does seem a little strange to me that you would insist so much to
make sure everyone knows you don't belong in a group whose goals you
support, whose march you're marching in, whose agenda you believe in.
->Sure it is. And in my opinion you have a right to exclude people from your
->march who identify themselves as "not gay" -- it just seems a little silly to
->me to do so.
We're not discussing excluding hets from marches; rather, we (well, I)
are/am discussing how heterosexuals identify in said marches and what the
point of view of at least one queer person (me) is on this issue.
->Um...I see your point here. But I think it is not homophobic for someone to
->frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
->and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
Y'know, you got me there. My first impulse is to say that if you are
_repulsed_ by the idea of two MOTSS making love, it may be questionable that
you are indeed not homophobic; I suspect some would find the repulsion to be
indicative of some narrow-mindedness.
I don't know. I suspect that it's a bit more complicated than that, because
these days it's not an issue of respecting my right to make love to a man;
it's an issue of equal rights, of a right to be protected from
discrimination in our jobs, our homes, our communities, our society. I've
seen phobes (and please don't think I'm referring to you here; I don't know
enough of you to think that you're a phobe) who technically agreed with what
you said above -- "I don't have anything against queers as long as what they
do stays within the bedroom as it should." These phobes usually are the
ones who have the problem with MOTSS kissing in public, or holding hands, or
dancing together, or embracing each other.
So ... is considering MOTSS sex to be repulsive a sign of homophobia, if it
is combined with a strong political and ideological stance in support of
queer rights? I don't know. At the risk of being branded narrow-minded,
however, this is not a quality I would look for in a friend or an
associate. Regardless of how appreciative I am of anyone who supports us,
there's enough people out there who think what I do is repulsive; I don't
need to associate with another one.
Take care,
-roy, feeling nice and drowsy 'cause of all the cold medicine.
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
"Hey, little boy, why don't you come up and see me sometime?" - Julie
WolfDancer
[snipped above statement]
>Whether I agree or disagree with the above statement, it rases some
>interesting questions in my mind, to wit:
>1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
> gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
Maybe, though I think that the definition of queer is starting to get
a little broad. Either that or I didn't understand it to begin with.
If queer is defined as a person with some sort of alternate sexuality,
the loosest definition that I've seen so far, then not being squicked
by the *idea* of motss sex doesn't really fall into that category.
They aren't engaging in any alternative sexual practices. Support of
them, yes. But not engagin in.
>2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
> queer?
By the above definition, no. They haven't *done* anything alternative.
>3. Why are some people squicked by the idea of motss sex of their own
> gender, yet tittilated by the idea of motss sex of the opposite?
Well, *I* have several theories about that. One being that the vast
majority are, as you say, male. It is not "manly" to show emotions to
other men. Though showing emotion to women is *sometimes* ok. You
can argue that sex isn't emotion, but I think for a vast majority of
people, it is. In that case, men having sex with men are breaking more
social taboos than women are when they show emition to other people,
both men and women. We're *supposed to be emotional. And then there's
the idea that a lot of men have that two women in bed are just *waiting*
for a man to come along.
>4. Why are the vast majority of the people who fit into the above
> category male? (Not all -- I've known a handfull of women who also
> fit that description.)
*blushes* Ok. I'll admiti it. I'm one of them. Why do *I* find myself
fascinated by motss sex of the opposite gender? Um.....in depth thought
time I suppose. It's not that I expect them to let me join in. On the
contrary, I don't *WANT* to join in. It's a completely different desire
that I have to be with two men. Maybe it's partly cause I, being female,
can't ever experience it. People are often fascinated by things they can't
have. To me, it's like this great big mysterious thing.....mystical and
hidden, and ........*regains her composure* Anyway.......let's not forget
that it's hot.......*grins wickedly* One of these days I'm gonna either
get to *see* it or just rent a damn vidoe and get the suspense over with.
>5. What if one is intrigued by the idea of motss sex, tries it out,
> and finds out that it is . . . okay? Yes, I am now speaking from
> experience. I'm not going to put names on it, but he's a friend of
> mine who can out himself if he wants to. He's cute, and a friend,
> and I have no regrets about it, and I don't know if I want to try
> it again. I mean, maybe I'm just not in love with him in a sexual
> way, and maybe I'd be queer for the right man, or maybe I'm
> actually straight, or maybe I just wasn't in the mood the last
> couple of times that we started thinking about trying something ...
What if one is? *shrug* Then you do it again. Or you don't. You
*may* be queer. Or you may just be straight with a gay experience.
It *really* doesn't matter that much. What *you* feel is subjective.
And noone else can judge it for you. Personally, I haven't found the
right woman yet. And I identify more on the het side of bi, like freep
said, Kinsey 2. It doesn't stop me from flirting, and teasing and
everything else. Someday, maybe the right woman will come along. Maybe
not. *shrugs again* Until then, I'll go on being my kinky perverted
self, with occasional forays into the femme half of the world......
moonlight - finally labeling herself a Kinsey 2.....happy stx?
*******************************************************************************
"A "practical joker" deserves applause for his wit according to it's quality.
Bastianado is about right. For exceptional wit one might grant keelhauling.
But staking him out to an anthill should be reserved for the very wittiest."
- Lazarus Long
moon...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
If you don't like what I have to say, take your marbles and go home.
*******************************************************************************
Xiphias Gladius
>. . . I think it is not homophobic for someone to
>frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
>and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
Whether I agree or disagree with the above statement, it rases some
interesting questions in my mind, to wit:
1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
queer?
3. Why are some people squicked by the idea of motss sex of their own
gender, yet tittilated by the idea of motss sex of the opposite?
4. Why are the vast majority of the people who fit into the above
category male? (Not all -- I've known a handfull of women who also
fit that description.)
5. What if one is intrigued by the idea of motss sex, tries it out,
and finds out that it is . . . okay? Yes, I am now speaking from
experience. I'm not going to put names on it, but he's a friend of
mine who can out himself if he wants to. He's cute, and a friend,
and I have no regrets about it, and I don't know if I want to try
it again. I mean, maybe I'm just not in love with him in a sexual
way, and maybe I'd be queer for the right man, or maybe I'm
actually straight, or maybe I just wasn't in the mood the last
couple of times that we started thinking about trying something ...
The sad part is that I can think of several reasons that I'd have
motss sex even if I'm not queer. One of them is to prove that I'm not
homophobic. I mean, if I'm bisexual, I can't be a 'phobe, right? One
of them is that, well, my friend was horny and interested in me, so, I
just wanted to be nice. That raises date-rape issues in my mind that
I don't think are present, so I don't think that that was an issue in
this case, however. One of the stupidest reasons, which probably
played more of a part than I really want to think about, is to lower
my Purity Test score.
To me, however, the most serious one of these seems to be the
existence in my mind of a queer/'phobe dichotomy. (ObUgol) I'm certain that
I'm not the only one who thinks this way; how many times have you
heard or thought, even in jest "It's a queer thing -- you/sie/I
wouldn't understand." That, to me, seems to speak to an
insider/outsider split.
Does this dichotomy, imagined or real, affect, amplify, or create the
atmosphere of heterocentrism that, according to Hayes, jenner, boy
brent, and many others, pervades asb?
Is an insider/outsider split neccessarily bad? I mean, the queer
community isn't the only community that has this. I've noticed it, to
a certain extent, in the bdsm scene, in the Deaf community, in the
queer community . . . haven't noticed it in the larger Jewish
community, except wrt religious laws, but, then, in urban New England,
Jews are hardly a persecuted minority the way a lot of other groups
are.
Now, with your permission, I'd like to create a coupe
thought-experiments (I'd of called them gedanken experiments, except I
can't reliably spell):
What would a non-queer/non-'phobe act like? Could they be squicked by
motss sex, and still not be a 'phobe? Could they be squicked by motss
PDA?
What if, in order to keep themselves from seeming hypocrytical, they
protested *all* PDA, motss *and* motos?
What if they were *genuinely* squicked by *all* PDA (don't laugh -- it's
true of a few friends of mine) I mean, they *are* homophobic; it's
just that they're also heterophobic. They are actually phobic of
sexuality.
Okay, I guess that's enough for now. If someone on gl-asb feels like
reposting this there, I don't mind, if you think that it would be a
useful thing there. I'm not certain how appropriate it'd be there --
I don't read gl-asb, and don't know how welcome a contribution from an
outsider would be -- but I'd like to find out reactions to this.
- Ian
Jack Mcbryde
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>
>[snipped above statement]
>>Whether I agree or disagree with the above statement, it rases some
>>interesting questions in my mind, to wit:
>
>>1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
>> gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
>
>Maybe, though I think that the definition of queer is starting to get
>a little broad. Either that or I didn't understand it to begin with.
>If queer is defined as a person with some sort of alternate sexuality,
>the loosest definition that I've seen so far, then not being squicked
>by the *idea* of motss sex doesn't really fall into that category.
>They aren't engaging in any alternative sexual practices. Support of
>them, yes. But not engagin in.
>
>>2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
>> queer?
>
>By the above definition, no. They haven't *done* anything alternative.
The main problem I have with this definition is that it would seem to
mean that all virgins have no classifiable sexuality. For example, I've always
considered the typical teenager to be heterosexual, because that was the
direction their inclinations took. And a definition that excludes people
based on lack actual experience strikes me as being somehow incomplete.
jack
--
jack mcb...@math.uh.edu * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins. Dare we * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
WolfDancer
>>
[snip]
>>>2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
>>> queer?
>>
>>By the above definition, no. They haven't *done* anything alternative.
>The main problem I have with this definition is that it would seem to
>mean that all virgins have no classifiable sexuality. For example, I've always
>considered the typical teenager to be heterosexual, because that was the
>direction their inclinations took. And a definition that excludes people
>based on lack actual experience strikes me as being somehow incomplete.
True. The definition of queer that I used does not include people like that.
Which is why I'm not sure that *I* agree with it. There is a large sector
of people that *don't* know where they fit in on the sexuality scale, myself
included. I've been told that I am bi, that I'm not bi because I don't
currently *have* a girlfriend, that I'm not bi because I lean more towards
men, and that I am bi because I *feel* bi. I actually meant to add something
of the sort at the end, but I ran out of time. Classes and all occur at the
most inconvenient times.
Thanks for addressing it though....:)
moonlight
robe...@corel.ca
straight person is that of my university dormmate Steve.
Steve is a straight, but both myself and my best friends
were comming out. The three of us were VERY close friends.
I came out to Steve by asking him out (before we lived in the
same dorm room) 'cause I thought he might be gay.
His response? "Oh...no thanks. But thanks for asking".
It turns out he wasn;t surprised that I was gay, but he
just never even thought about my sexuality since he
wasn't interested in me.
Because two of his good friends were comming out,
he got involved.
The next term we became roomates and by this time
I was quite out (my friends say that I napalmed the
closet door) and many people wondered whether
Steve was gay.
He had two response to the question, "Steve, are
you gay?":
1) "I'm not intersted in you sexually." since the only
reason they should be asking (he thought) was
the possibilty of having sex together;
2) "Yep." (Just to confuse them).
There was one exceedingly homophobic woman that
Steve always wanted to shock/annoy because of her
backward attitudes so he LEAD her
to believe that we were a couple! He had no problem
hugging me and being affectionate (we never did kiss...
damn!) because we were good friends.
Remeber, he was still looking for the girl of his dreams
at this time but he ALWAYS said that the right person
for him would NOT be phased by his attitude.
He was right, his met his love, Kristen (now his wife),
my best fiend, Ian and she was just as supportive and
helpful.
The really great thing about Steve and Kristen and the
other gay +'ve straights I met at university was that they
did not walk on egg shells around you. They still made
jokes that made fun of stereotypical fags and they still had
some prejudices. BUT, you could discuss things with them,
they were open-minded and willing to hear you out as long as
you were willing to do the same.
I didn't (and still don't) mind people identifying themselves as
straight at gay functions (if they are straught) beasue what I
think the LesBiGay movement is about is being honest about
who you are and helping other people become who they are.
Repsectfully,
Rob
Spectre
>baph...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Gilgamesh) writes:
>
>>. . . I think it is not homophobic for someone to
>>frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
>>and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
Don't see any problem there. Live and let live. I applaud anyone who can
do this despite being "repulsed."
>Whether I agree or disagree with the above statement, it rases some
>interesting questions in my mind, to wit:
>
>1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
> gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
I don't think so, but I bet you could find someone that does. I know
"queers" who would say this, come to think of it.
>2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
> queer?
Not at all.
>3. Why are some people squicked by the idea of motss sex of their own
> gender, yet tittilated by the idea of motss sex of the opposite?
Haven't figured this one out yet. There are those of us who are not
"squicked" by the idea, are not turned on (well, not much) by our own
gender, but do like the idea (and pictures/stories/etc) of two (or more)
members of the opposite sex going at it. I'd call it more than
"tittilated," BTW.
>4. Why are the vast majority of the people who fit into the above
> category male? (Not all -- I've known a handfull of women who also
> fit that description.)
This one has me confused. I know only a few women who say they want to
watch two men, but most of the men I know want to watch two women.
When I was younger I used to here "Hey, double the fun, right?" from
guys, but never the same thing from women.
>5. What if one is intrigued by the idea of motss sex, tries it out,
> and finds out that it is . . . okay? Yes, I am now speaking from
> experience. I'm not going to put names on it, but he's a friend of
> mine who can out himself if he wants to. He's cute, and a friend,
> and I have no regrets about it, and I don't know if I want to try
> it again. I mean, maybe I'm just not in love with him in a sexual
> way, and maybe I'd be queer for the right man, or maybe I'm
> actually straight, or maybe I just wasn't in the mood the last
> couple of times that we started thinking about trying something ...
Don't give yourself an ulcer. Wait till your ready and don't hurt
anyone (without a safeword). Same advice goes for anyone, regardless
of who or what they're looking to make love to.
>The sad part is that I can think of several reasons that I'd have
>motss sex even if I'm not queer. One of them is to prove that I'm not
>homophobic.
Do you really have to prove that to anyone, even yourself?
> I mean, if I'm bisexual, I can't be a 'phobe, right?
Makes sense, but who are you trying to justify it to?
> One
>of them is that, well, my friend was horny and interested in me, so, I
>just wanted to be nice.
There shouldn't be any problem with that, but make sure he knows what's
going on. That should go for everyone as well.
> That raises date-rape issues in my mind that
>I don't think are present, so I don't think that that was an issue in
>this case, however.
Wait a sec, would that be him raping you, or vice versa? If he was
horny and looking to get in your pants, and you say "Yes" because
you want to try it, where's the rape issue coming from?
> One of the stupidest reasons, which probably
>played more of a part than I really want to think about, is to lower
>my Purity Test score.
Have you tried using the test as a list of things to try yet? ;-)
>To me, however, the most serious one of these seems to be the
>existence in my mind of a queer/'phobe dichotomy. (ObUgol) I'm certain that
>I'm not the only one who thinks this way; how many times have you
>heard or thought, even in jest "It's a queer thing -- you/sie/I
>wouldn't understand."
Um, none that I can think of, since I don't consider myself a member of
that group. But I see your point.
> That, to me, seems to speak to an
>insider/outsider split.
Isn't this part of any group, especially if that group has been/is being
persecuted for one reason or another? Black pride, woman power, as
well as white supremacy, just to name a few that you can see an "us and
them" attitude in.
>Does this dichotomy, imagined or real, affect, amplify, or create the
>atmosphere of heterocentrism that, according to Hayes, jenner, boy
>brent, and many others, pervades asb?
>Is an insider/outsider split neccessarily bad? I mean, the queer
>community isn't the only community that has this. I've noticed it, to
>a certain extent, in the bdsm scene, in the Deaf community, in the
>queer community . . . haven't noticed it in the larger Jewish
>community, except wrt religious laws, but, then, in urban New England,
>Jews are hardly a persecuted minority the way a lot of other groups
>are.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of who and what you are. It's
when we get different=bad that we have problems. Have all the secret
passwords and inside jokes you want, just lay off on the lynchings.
>Now, with your permission, I'd like to create a coupe
>thought-experiments (I'd of called them gedanken experiments, except I
>can't reliably spell):
Looks good to me, but I don't know what the hell it is. :^)
>What would a non-queer/non-'phobe act like?
A little like me, I would think, but I can only account for a statistical
universe of one.
> Could they be squicked by
>motss sex, and still not be a 'phobe? Could they be squicked by motss
>PDA?
Sure.
>What if, in order to keep themselves from seeming hypocrytical, they
>protested *all* PDA, motss *and* motos?
They'd be annoying and not much fun at parties. :-)
>What if they were *genuinely* squicked by *all* PDA (don't laugh -- it's
>true of a few friends of mine) I mean, they *are* homophobic; it's
>just that they're also heterophobic. They are actually phobic of
>sexuality.
A sorry sight, but their business. I know a few myself, though I
don't know how they put up with me, PDA being a favorite passtime.
>Okay, I guess that's enough for now. If someone on gl-asb feels like
>reposting this there, I don't mind, if you think that it would be a
>useful thing there. I'm not certain how appropriate it'd be there --
>I don't read gl-asb, and don't know how welcome a contribution from an
>outsider would be -- but I'd like to find out reactions to this.
>
> - Ian
Sounds like you've got your head together to me, but I may not be
someone you want to hear that from.
--Charlie
Alan Smith
>Gilgamesh <baph...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> wrote:
What?? Somebody *else* in Ft. Fun? And we're both het males. Figures.
>->I don't see what's so awful about not wanting to be identified as gay if you
>->are not, in fact, gay, or not wanting to be hit on by people who you do not,
>->in principle, consider sexually attractive. I am not Christian, nor am I a
"Truth in advertising."
>If a Biggemwanf hits on me (*sigh* so few gay men hit on me), I could always
>say I'm not interested (or not :) ). I don't think of it in the same way
>I've seen some hets think of being hit by MOTSS -- "Eww, yuck! God, I hope
>no men hits on me, that would make me feel so uncomfortable!"
Well, y'see *no* het women hit on me. Standard het behavior is
1) Boy meets Girl.
2) Boy stalks Girl.
3) Boy hits Girl over head with club.
4) Boy brings Girl home.
And role switching is very very rare. So when one gets hit on, you
1) Don't know what to do.
2) Feel kinda insulted at bein' thought a girl.
>said gay friend has been hit on by women
Well. There goes that theory. Maybe I'm just ugly.
>(he is very handsome),
Yep. I'm ugly.
>->Um...I see your point here. But I think it is not homophobic for someone to
>->frankly be repulsed by the idea of two people of the same gender making love,
>->and yet simultaneously recognizing and fully honoring their right to do so.
>Y'know, you got me there. My first impulse is to say that if you are
>_repulsed_ by the idea of two MOTSS making love, it may be questionable that
>you are indeed not homophobic; I suspect some would find the repulsion to be
>indicative of some narrow-mindedness.
If you're repulsed by Calimari, are you Loligophobic? I mean, if you
really feel grossed out by it, maybe, but what if you just don't like it?
To paraphrase Ian: What if you felt intrigued by motss sex, tried it, and
*didn't* like it?
>So ... is considering MOTSS sex to be repulsive a sign of homophobia, if it
>is combined with a strong political and ideological stance in support of
>queer rights?
Actually, I think we need multiple types of homophobia. Type I, the "classic"
homophobic, who is scared of homosexuals in all shapes and forms, and Type
II, the "Lite" homophobic, who is scared of being in an intimate moment
with the wrong person.
Big Al. "Oooh, baby" "Oops, wrong sex. Sorry."
John R. Morton
Tons of crap deleted !
Ethnocentrism and racism are peas in a pod. As we see, you have
to be a white male to be a racist. And we observe, that all
others are afforded "ethnocentrism."
I think, it just might be possible that we need to take a closer
look !
Roy S Rapoport
->I agree here -- this makes a lot of sense. I *personally* would want my
->friends to treat the desires of others with respect and gentleness. However,
->I think it's possible for someone, for example, to be repulsed by the idea
->of homosexual sex and yet decline a come-on with great gentleness. Many
What exactly do you mean by 'repulsed'? Do you mean that they are repulsed
by watching it, or thinking of participating in it, or by thinking that
_anyone_ does it?
->Hmmmm. Being of a rather Libertarian political persuasion, I do not feel that
->there should be any legal protection against private discrimination, whether
->on the basis of religion, political philosophy, gender, sexual orientation,
->you name it (although I do believe that there should be legal protection
Personally, I believe that discrimination per se is not a problem;
discrimination that is rampant and occures frequently in society _is_ a
problem; this is why I had no problem with being rejected as a housemate
because of my orientation by gay men who were concerned I might bring a
woman to the house, but would have a problem with being rejected by hets.
If we ever get to the point where only isolated individuals are
discriminating against queers I will have no problem with not making it a
crime; until then, until queers don't encounter a systematic bias against
them, I will fight for governmental protection of my and others rights.
->Now -- am I a homophobe? Or am I someone who merely disagrees with you on a
->point of political philosophy? :) You may consider it a very important point
->of political philosophy -- I certainly do -- but it is motivated from
->principle, not hate of any kind. In the same way, I attribute the best
->possible motives to you: I assume the source of your disagreement is
->compassion, not a desire to repress free enterprise and take away the
->hard-earned liberties of those who through their own hard work and with their
->own money started a business. ;)
And I attribute the best motives to you : I believe you're working out of a
political belief that overrides your best interests, rather than out of
human compassion or a sense of justice :)
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
Roy S Rapoport
->1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
-> gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
No.
->2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
-> queer?
No.
->3. Why are some people squicked by the idea of motss sex of their own
-> gender, yet tittilated by the idea of motss sex of the opposite?
Because it does not interfere with their concept of their orientation. In
other words, a woman seeing two men having sex does not have her
heterosexual orientation challenged by this sight.
->5. What if one is intrigued by the idea of motss sex, tries it out,
-> and finds out that it is . . . okay? Yes, I am now speaking from
Then someone is, possibly, hetersexual. Or someone didn't have a good
experience and needs to try it again. The answer is up to the someone.
->The sad part is that I can think of several reasons that I'd have
->motss sex even if I'm not queer. One of them is to prove that I'm not
->homophobic.
Dear, it really is not that big of a deal, y'know? I mean, I had sex (motss
sex, but the 'motss' part is irrelevant) because my partner was paying the
bills and having sex with him was the most effective way I found to not
argue about money. In the end, I suppose, everyone has their price.
->I mean, if I'm bisexual, I can't be a 'phobe, right? One
No. You can be a bisexual supremacist, though.
->of them is that, well, my friend was horny and interested in me, so, I
->just wanted to be nice. That raises date-rape issues in my mind that
->I don't think are present, so I don't think that that was an issue in
->this case, however. One of the stupidest reasons, which probably
Mercy fucks; been there, done that, not proud of it. No big deal
->played more of a part than I really want to think about, is to lower
->my Purity Test score.
Actually, that's a fairly valid answer ; I think the mere fact you did it to
lower your purity score also lowers your score, but I suppose it depends on
the version.
->To me, however, the most serious one of these seems to be the
->existence in my mind of a queer/'phobe dichotomy. (ObUgol) I'm certain that
->I'm not the only one who thinks this way; how many times have you
->heard or thought, even in jest "It's a queer thing -- you/sie/I
->wouldn't understand." That, to me, seems to speak to an
->insider/outsider split.
True, but having sex with a man won't make you understand it, Ian. I'm
sorry. To the degree to which a queer consciousness exists, merely having
sex with a man won't make you understand it. Maybe identifying as bi/gay
would get you closer to it, but sex is not what the consciousness is about.
It's about society and _saying_ that you're queer, and having people know
that and treat you differently. It's about saying that you've had MOTSS sex
in forums where the reaction will not by definition be sympathetic. Saying
you've had MOTSS sex and not enjoyed it will more likely than not cause
homophobes to not treat you substantially different. To them, it will sound
like "I've had MOTSS sex, but I'm still het! Honest!" You're not the first
heterosexual man to have had MOTSS sex, you're not the last. It still does
not make you any less het.
->queer community . . . haven't noticed it in the larger Jewish
->community, except wrt religious laws, but, then, in urban New England,
->Jews are hardly a persecuted minority the way a lot of other groups
->are.
I have ; my parents would be greatly disappointed if my lifemate was not
jewish. Then again, if he was jewish and male, they might have a problem
with that too.
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
"I wouldn't call you a perp if you were the last rapist on earth!" -STella
The Friendly Ghost
Jack Mcbryde <mcb...@casc.math.uh.edu> wrote:
>In article <2e03m9$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> moon...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (WolfDancer ) writes:
>>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>>
>>>1. If somebody is *not* squcked by the idea of motss sex of their own
>>> gender, does that make hir queer to some degree?
>>
>>Maybe, though I think that the definition of queer is starting to get
>>a little broad. Either that or I didn't understand it to begin with.
>>If queer is defined as a person with some sort of alternate sexuality,
>>the loosest definition that I've seen so far, then not being squicked
>>by the *idea* of motss sex doesn't really fall into that category.
>>They aren't engaging in any alternative sexual practices. Support of
>>them, yes. But not engagin in.
>>
>>>2. If somebody is *intrigued* by the above, does that mean sie is
>>> queer?
>>
>>By the above definition, no. They haven't *done* anything alternative.
>
>The main problem I have with this definition is that it would seem to
>mean that all virgins have no classifiable sexuality. For example, I've always
>considered the typical teenager to be heterosexual, because that was the
>direction their inclinations took. And a definition that excludes people
>based on lack actual experience strikes me as being somehow incomplete.
>
>jack
I'd agree with Jack that it's dangerous to describe sexuality by
actions; merely having had sex with men doesn't make me gay, merely
not having had sex with men wouldn't make me straight. (of course not
counting sexual activity forced on me by either gender.)
People do things for a variety of complicated reasons; sometimes I'd
agree with my shrink I've been simply repeating childhood abuse trying
to "get it right this time" but some things I do because it just seems
like it's what I want to do. Volition vs. Compulsion is how I
distinguish. When I'm being honest I can distinguish the two, for
myself.
As for considering the typical teenager to be heterosexual, I suppose
statistics would bear this out, most people are fantasizing about
*something* sexual after the hormones kick in full blast. I myself
wouldn't know what "typical" people think about, and I doubt may posters
here would either.
My 25c
--
Ciao,
T. Friendly Ghost
=+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+=
Roy S Rapoport
[Talks about a heterosexual male friend of his]
->to believe that we were a couple! He had no problem
->hugging me and being affectionate (we never did kiss...
->damn!) because we were good friends.
You know, that kind of person represents a type of heterosexual I absolutely
hate. A (gay) friend of mine and I had a friend who behaved in very much
the same way -- I remember the time we took him to a gay club and he
snuggled with my friend ... he later danced on the floor and you could _see_
a fair amount of men practically pining for him; we walked out of there with
my two friends holding hands.
It's these heterosexual men, the men who dare to _flirt_ with men, the men
who dare to get our hopes up that give het men everywhere a bad name.
-roy
(Oh, God. The temptation to not add a smilie here and watch the flames fly
is almost overwhelming).
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
Jack Mcbryde
>True. The definition of queer that I used does not include people like that.
>Which is why I'm not sure that *I* agree with it. There is a large sector
>of people that *don't* know where they fit in on the sexuality scale, myself
>included. I've been told that I am bi, that I'm not bi because I don't
>currently *have* a girlfriend, that I'm not bi because I lean more towards
>men, and that I am bi because I *feel* bi. I actually meant to add something
>of the sort at the end, but I ran out of time. Classes and all occur at the
>most inconvenient times.
I understand! :-) I'm just gonna have serious doubts about any definition
that insists on one being a practicing member. I don't see that my
orientation goes away when I'm between partners. It looks like it's
more of a sliding scale thing, where gay is some indeterminate amount
of preference toward MOTSS is at one end, het is some indeterminate
amount of preference for MOTOS, and bi is somewhere in the middle. And then
we could dump things like "I'm not bi because I don't currently *have* a
girlfriend" into 'what constitutes proof of my sexuality for third parties'.
So I guess I lean toward the "I feel ____, therefore I am." And then other
peoples reactions into the "I do/don't believe that you are ___, because ...".
later,
an1...@anon.penet.fi
Matt writes:
> [The_Horseman talks about his experience being a pro-gay straight at
>a gay pride march]
...
>... this week a question was raised. The person that I was with had
>given, as an example of subtle homophobia, someone wearing a "Straight but
>not narrow" T-shirt to a pride march. Her problem with this was the
>fact that we KNOW that this person is a supporter of gay rights, since
>he's at the march, so why is there a need to tell people that he's
>straight? My opinion is that there is a need for homophobes to know that
>there ARE straights who support gay rights because, as Horseman said,
>it takes a somewhat different (and IMO stronger) principle to stand up
>for the rights of someone else when your own rights are assured.
I must admit I've been guilty of jumping all over people for this sort
of thing and after thinking it over I realized that perhaps I was
being a bit hypersensitive. If it's ok for me to wear my triangle pin
to mixed events, then I don't see a reason why someone can't wear
something identifying them as het. Now I try to look for that fine
line between people just identifying themselves and those that are
jumping up and down going "I'm not really one of them, I'm just
open minded." I think I've been fairly successful in being able to
tell the difference.
I still do wonder at times what the point of identifying as het at a
march is, but as you say sometimes hets do have more impact on the
"veiwing public" than the gay marchers do. And as much as it sometimes
*feels* that marches are "for us" they aren't. They are for the media
and throught the media for politicians, to show them that we have
clout. That's the only way to get laws changed. And I think that
straight supporters have played a big role in that (my sister noticed
that at the MOW the parents of gay children got *alot* of coverage in
the mainstream press)
> Anyway, to make a long story short, this got argued for quite a bit
>and I was wondering what people here thought about it. Where does on
>draw the line between healthy support and the subtle homophobia of "I don't
>have anything against gays, but I'M straight."?
Me? I draw it the only way I know how, one individual at a time. If
it seems to me that the person is just clueless to the mixed message
they might be sending, I clue them in *gently*. If I think they're
a jerk who's using a march to show how cool and open minded they are,
I pull out the ol' clue by four. But if I think that they're a savvy
campaigner trying to let the boys in Washington know that they're up
against a united *pansexual* front, then I stand next to them and chant.
*shrug* Prolly not the best system, but it works for me.
...
> -Matt (now, look carfully through this post.
> What's my orientation?)
Oh it's soooo obvious. You *must* be gay. I mean, you couldn't
possibly be staight... not with that hair cut ;^)
Cassi
El Dopa
>> -Matt (now look carefully through this post.
>> What's my orientation?)
>>
>>Oh it's soooo obvious. You *must* be gay. I mean, you couldn't
>>possibly be straight... not with that hair cut ;^)
Yes, but most gay men tell me that I *must* be straight becu
because I have no fashion sense. <sigh> Well, I never claimed I did.
Kind of depressing that all the women think I'm gay and all the men
think I'm straight. What's a fellow to do?
-Matt, the misrepresented and misunderstood
Roy S Rapoport
->
-> Kind of depressing that all the women think I'm gay and all the men
->think I'm straight. What's a fellow to do?
But Matt ... *I* don't thin you're straight.
*flutters eyelashes* *flirts*
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I don't even speak for _myself_ necessarily.
God's Loyal Opposition
Cassiopudding says:
>> -Matt (now look carefully through this post.
>> What's my orientation?)
Ummm...South-Southwest?
-Schwartzberg, who has simply made a policy of not speculating.
El Dopa
>But Matt ... *I* don't thin you're straight.
>
>*flutters eyelashes* *flirts*
Flirt, Roy? With li'l old me? You're too kind, sir. <flutter,
flutter> I'm so FLATTERED.
-Matt (who knew that Roy wasn't
just a goytoy :) )
Roy S. Rapoport
->
-> Flirt, Roy? With li'l old me? You're too kind, sir. <flutter,
->flutter> I'm so FLATTERED.
Matt, I flirt with EVERYONE. Well, most everyone. Well, OK. Maybe just
mostly men. I figured that if Xiphias won't have me, maybe you'll be less
selective, y'see ...
And no. I'm not just a goytoy. It just happens to be my main relationship
these days, is all.
-roy
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy S. Rapoport r...@soda.berkeley.edu r...@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Letters from you make me feel good." -Laura Creighton
DISCLAIMER: "I meant every word of it, but I doubt anyone else did."