Seems to me that all he’d have to do is get permission from the posters he wants to quote: they retain the individual publishing rights for their posts, and they can sign them over to Esprix if they want to: I don’t see any reason he’d have to give them coauthorship if they were willing to sign over their contributions to this thread. Besides, how would you designate this coauthorship? As “written by the members of the Straight Dope Message Board”? That would get you into questionable areas, obviously; otherwise you’d have to list each contributor separately as coauthers. Again, not necessary if each one gives you permission, in writing, to quote his or her contributions.
Gay men don’t have the issues of “barriers” between men that straight men do, so it’s possible that the friend is being friendly in his own way.
And though some men DO try to seduce straight men (a particular treat for me, FWIW; YMMV), most probably don’t. You might just make it clear, though, if you don’t know your friend well enough to know that he’d never do that. On the other hand, you might try it: it won’t turn you gay, and it will probably be fun, even as a one-time experiment.
Hello all, nice to see a new thread.
Question #1.
Here’s an article from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html
I realize that it’s satire (and I suppose that’s what The Onion does best) but I got to thinking…could there be a grain of truth to it? (The best comedy should, IMHO)
Could this sort of thing be actually harming the acceptance of gay and lesbian people in the overall population?
I thought maybe they were just spoofing it so I did a google search on ‘gay pride march’ and turned up the following:
http://www.photo.net/philg/ny/gay-parade.html
http://www.gcntv.com/pride98/parde/
http://www.charliesstar.com/pride99.html
Now, I’m the first to admit that such things (in the links I’ve searched out) are a minority, but those are the marchers/floats that are going to be getting the ink/screen time during coverage of the events.
So does that work against mainstream acceptance and tolerance? Would the hatred directed at the gay community be less if these scenes weren’t on the news?
I’m not saying that the gay world should be in the closet, far from it. But just being gay, uncloseted might be better PR, if you get my drift.
Question 2:
What do you think is the source of the hate directed against the gay community? No cite, but I seem to recall reading that over the course of history such attitudes have come and gone.
It occurs to me that (and this literally just occured to me) I should want and approve of gay men. Why? An example:
I am a straight male. Esprix (sorry, but it’s your thread) is a gay male. The operative fact there is that we’re both males. But what occured to me is that, with Esprix being gay, there is one fewer male chasing the available pool of females out there
Now, unless I’m mistaken, I should now want more and more gay men in the world. Anything that reduces the number of men chasing the available females is a good thing for me, right? If 95% of the worlds males were gay I’d have had better luck in high school, right?
Um, unless the same thing happened to the female side of the equation. Then I’d be back dateless on a Saturday night. Dang.
OK, I apologize. That was kinda dorky.
But I still don’t get the knee-jerk hatred for homosexuality that some people seem to possess.
My theory:
I think it has to do with an inability to be able to understand difference. Some people cannot understand intellectually what it might be like to be black, female, or gay. This lack of understanding in some people can transform itself into hatred, as since they don’t belong to the group, they see their own group as the norm, and the other groups as deviating from the norm, that as they cannot understand those groups, there must be something wrong with them.
Augment this with religious information that has said over time that owning slaves is a good thing, black people were meant to be owned, women were meant to be subservient to men, and gay people are an ‘abomination’, and you can see the breeding ground for future Fred Phelps types.
I was as pleased with the info in the last thread as I did in the first thread. I wanted to reply to the person who’s friend had such a narrow definition of gay. I know lots of guys who say, “I’m not gay, I just fuck guys every now and then.” Whatever. Last time I replied to this thread I was pissed because all my dyke friends wouldn’t let me call myself gay just because I was dating a guy. I was born catholic, whether I go to church or not, the decision to accept that label is mine. I felt I was gay because that is what I am, not what I do. Since then I’ve returned to the fold, but I must say some of my friendships have been compromised by the lack of faith by some of my friends.
Power to you all
Sue
I believe strongly that what these often-marginalized groups have in common is not simply a vaguely defined “differentness,” but a very specific difference. What is the one, most specific thing that each of these groups has in common?
Give up?
They are not straight+white+male.
The prejudices and bigotries associated with these groups all come from a perceived threat to the group in power, i.e. straight white males. And since straight white males still pretty much call the shots, these prejudices will of course find their way into the general population.
I believe homosexuality remains the most vehemently marginalized “difference” because somehow in the minds of many SWMs it threatens the very core qualities of manhood, which is of course in itself an entirely cultural construct that hasn’t any real reason for being, and is therefore extrememly vulnerable to outside threats. In other words, SWMs paranoia about homosexuality is a desperately defensive (if unconscious) acknowledgement of just how flimsy and untenable their artificial position of power really is.
That last post truly saddens me. I mean that without invective. I’ll respond to it you know where.
Well, my store has dried cilantro in the spice isle.
I never use it though. Lesbians prefer something with heat.
shudder d-d-DRIED cilantro? BLEAGH.
I don’t like fresh cilantro either - to me it tastes just like grass clippings - but I can’t imagine there being a point to dried cilantro. Again I say, bleagh.
Maybe I’ve never seen it because I hardly ever go up the spice aisle… I buy my herbs and spices from a bulk vendor because they’re fresher.
Isn’t Dan Savage the gay Dave Barry?
And hey Esprix - what ever happened to our idea of assembling a three-man panel - you for the gay viewpoint, me for the bi viewpoint, and The Straight Guy To Be Named Later? I’m still interested if you are, and now that my wife knows I’m bi I wouldn’t have to cash the checks at the racetrack.
What did you think of John Waters’ appearance on the Simpsons as “Gay John”? I thought it was HILARIOUS…to this day it’s one of my favorite episodes of that show.
My God, when they go to the Steel Mill and Homer says, “YOU’RE ALL GAY!” and the one guy says, “OH BE NICE!”
God damn it, that’s funny. Did you think it was funny?
and lissener, I didn’t mean to get you all riled up with my gaydar question, and I think I said TWICE that it may just be the gay guys I’M hanging around with. I’m just amazed at how they simply will not accept the straightness of some men even when I’m looking them in the eye, saying “I HAD HIS PENIS IN MY VAGINA AND IT DROVE HIM TO A THUNDERING ORGASM.”
“Doesn’t matter.” It’s exasperating. I hope you’re not mad at me.
As Steve Dallas would say, “Lord knows I cherish gay people.” 
jarbaby
So, how do you feel about lesbians? 
FTR, I am a bit offended at a worldview in which womankind forms a “pool” in which men dip their hooks. However, you did admit that your post was “a bit dorky” so I won’t take too much offense.
A bit of a political question;
How are gay rights coming?
Are there a lot of support groups for gay teens in schools (or out of schools)?
Are we ever going to see the day when being gay is as interesting as what flavor ice cream one prefers?
Or are crimes against gays up?
Yeah, as a matter of fact, at my school, if only 67% of the guys were gay, we could all be happy (assuming no lesbians).
Hastur wrote:
No, I think it goes deeper than that.
My dad is a good example of someone who is homophobic but doesn’t actually lash out at homosexuals. His parents (my grandma and grampa) did not raise him to dislike homosexuals, and yet he feels an intense anxiety around homosexual males. The more of a “flaming” homosexual the guy is, the more intense his anxiety will be, up to and including an occasional involuntary shudder. This feeling is primal and visceral.
I suspect he may be afraid of the prospect of getting “ass-raped.” It would not matter that most homosexual men would take no interest in him whatsoever, and that harldy any homosexual men exist that rape other men (outside of prison populations). My dad’s fear is still there.
It should also be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, my dad does not have these same feelings about homosexual women – just homosexual men.
I have to wonder: How common is this? Is much, if not most, homophobia fuelled by this “primal fear” rather than by a simple lack of understanding? If that’s the case, it’ll probably be much harder to eradicate than, say, racism.
The biggest problem I have with this is that “flaming homosexual” is a social construct with no inherent association with being gay. Lots of gay men do not exhibit the behaviors commonly identified as “flaming homosexual”, and there are straight men who do. In addition, “typical” male behavior varies enough from culture to culture that behavior that might get one labeled as a “flaming homosexual” in some places would be considered normal in others. I refuse to believe that this is somehow “primal”, but rather simply deeply enculturated, probably from childhood through contact with similiarly enculturated relatives and peers.
I suspect this is actually quite similar to the irrational fear of being beaten up that many whites feel in the presence of a black man. This prejudicial construct has no substantial factual basis, nor is there any biological reason for it. Nor is it explicitly taught; but nonetheless it is very effectively learned and passed down from generation to generation. Our popular culture is full of references to “big bad black men”, after all; and it is also full of references to gay ass-rapers. Listen to the taunts ten year old boys exchange sometime and you’ll see what I mean.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just using a statistical term for a group that meets certain criteria. If I’m looking to hire someone then the people who respond to my ad form my ‘pool’ of candidates. If I’m looking for a date then the available women form the potential ‘pool’ of dating partners. No offense even imagined.
And I mentioned the effect of lesbians (though I admit, only by implication) on my grand scheme of hoping to be the only straight male in america:
I’m glad I’m married. I’d be hopeless on the dating scene.
I’ve been thinking over my initial question: the one about the article from The Onion regarding the more extreme parts of gay pride marches. I still would like to know everyone’s opinion on whether that works for or against the attempt to gain mainstream acceptance.
There would be no point in gaining mainstream acceptance if we had to stop accepting portions of our community in order so to do.
Dear Gay Guy,
I’ve had gay friends casually use the terms “queer” and “fag” to refer to themselves in private (ie: not in a theater or resturant, but around me).
This irritates the hell out of me. I find the terms degrading, dehumanizing, crude and just offensive. I’ve heard the theory that they’re “depowering” the word…that by using it to refer to themselves it ceases to be an insult. Nonetheless, it still irritates me, and I believe it’s not really…healthy(?) to use degrading terms to reference yourself (I’d never call myself a kike, for instance). I’m also paradoxically a bit flattered that we’re close enough that from their persepctive they can ‘relax’ enough to use the term.
I believe that they’re grown-ups and can words as they see fit. I’m irritated by PC Police who go around correcting people. Apparently we have the urge to become that which irritates us.
Do I:
A) Keep my gawddamned mouth shut and learn to deal with it: if it ain’t bothering them, why should it bother me?
B) Mention quietly that I’m bothered by the terms? (I really don’t like this option. It smacks of…not censorship…not prudery…I can’t think of the right word. But I’d see it as intrusive)
C) Drag 'em down to the kitchen sink and wash their mouths out with soap? (Problematic" one friend’s bigger and meaner than me! :D)
D) Other
Fenris
My current long-distance boyfriend refuses to refer to himself as gay and says he identifies as queer instead.
He says that calling himself gay when he has a 20-year history of depression is definitely akin to sick humor (or humour, as he’d spell it).
I personally have no problem with it. “Gay” used to be derogatory too. “Queer”, when divorced from its negative aspects, is more than somewhat accurate. “Fag” isn’t that bad, though I very rarely hear fellow gay men use the full word “faggot” except in a negative sense.
It’s linguistic fashion. We’re almost always looking for something to use in place of homosexual, which my friends in college (8 years ago) objected to as a general casual term because it seemed so cold and clinical.
Also, to address the “weird contingents marching in pride parades” post, truthfully our weird contingents are no worse than the straight world’s weird contingents that come out and march around at Mardi Gras. If you were to put a photo of a Pride Parade and a Mardi Gras parade side by side, the only real difference you’d notice would be the wording of the signs and which gender which is kissing/hugging/groping. Oh, and we’re usually dressed better.
jayjay