When I see a word with the suffix “-phobia,” I get an image of two magnets repelling each other. And in turn, when I picture two magnets repelling each other, I get an image of two people doing a “speak to the hand” gesture.
Just playing image association.
So I, for one, anecdotally speaking, do no kneejerkily assume fear and horror; my first assumption, linguistically speaking, is a simple aversion.
Since, as I pointed it in my long post in this thread, an “aversion” to the political equality of homosexuals is irrational, “undue” is certainly within reason for a connotation of the word.
I agree. What’s your point?
That even if it still meant “undue fear”–and ONLY that, though it’s been shown is has more than one connotation–I’d still call that a valid definition of homophobia, since homophobia is demonstrably irrational.
Okay… and that has what to do with my post?
I defined “homo” in its modern sense, but then I went on to define “phobia” in its modern sense! How ironic! :rolleyes:
It’s also correct to define “phobia” as “aversion” and always has been, even since Ancient Greece. It’s not aversion in the sense of “I don’t like that”, but in the sense of revulsion AKA horror.
I’m sure the guy who has a phobia of gays because he was serial raped as a kid by his father’s friend would be glad to hear that his fears are undue, lissener.
Most homophobia is probably irrational, but to claim that nobody has good reasons to be that way is a bigotry as great as that of anyone who ever said “teh buttsex is icky”. You’re not all saints; some people do have good reasons to fear and loathe you.
! It’s not irrational to project the actions of one person onto an entire mass of completely unrelated people?! It might be comforting to do that, as it gives a person a quick and easy sense of security (“just avoid homosexuals altogether and nothing can go wrong”), but you can’t call it rational. It’s not bigotry dismiss a person who is too weak-minded to differentiate between people who share one trait.
There’s a distinction between “rational” and “correct”, you know.
Wanting to avoid all gays because some of them have hurt you is a rational response, even though it isn’t the right response. Conversely, saying “The Bible says queers are an abomination” is not rational, but it is correct (if you’re Judeo-Christian, anyway).
Right. Which is why me being beat up by a black guy once makes it totally rational for me to join the KKK.
Thank you Miller and Pizzabrat! I could not think of any reply that made any sense. Here’s a little secret. Just because someone is gay or bi, does not mean they are automatically going to start attacking anyone. That is as stupid as saying all straights rape preschool girls.
Class, repeat after me:
Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia.
Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia.
Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia.
So, yeah, his fears are undue and irrational. Gay men do not rape little boys, full stop. If he thinks they do, because of his experiences in the past, he has a phobia and needs to overcome the aversion.
I always thought the concept was not that you are afraid of gay people, but of gayness as it were. You may be afraid your kids will have gay teachers. You may be afraid that if you spend too much time near gay people, they’ll “turn” you.
In the broader sense, it’s true segregationists were not afraid of blacks, but they were afraid of blackness, if you will, in a similar way. They didn’t want their kids to attend schools with black kids. And many of them hated R&B and rock ‘n’ roll music that was just coming on the scene because they thought our pristine white culture was going to be polluted. They weren’t afraid of blacks but they feared the influence of black culture.
You sound like a first class bigot, unless your OP was just a hypothetical rant against a peculiarity of word usage.
Oh, don’t you fucking dare to give me that mealy-mouthed apologist shit.
We all have a sexuality, and on top of that we have a set of criteria that we find attractive and look for in a partner. I’m attracted to brunettes, you maybe go for height; paedophilia is an attraction to extreme youth. In each case, we will seek partners of the appropriate gender who fit our criteria. I look for women, you look for men (I assume - my apologies if I’ve misread you); paedophiles look for children of a gender befitting their sexuality. That’s why in nearly every case of sexual abuse you hear about, only one gender of child has been abused.
Homosexuality and paedophilia are not interchangeable terms, to be sure, but some gay men are paedophiles - as are some hetero men. The sooner gays stop trying to deny it, making everybody wonder why they’re lying, and instead say “Yes, some gay men are paedophiles - and we think they’re as disgusting as hetero paedophiles, just like you do”, the better off they will be.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I don’t think Look!Ninjas meant that no gay man has ever raped a boy. Sure it’s happened. Rapists and pedophiles are evil, but just because someone’s gay doesn’t imply that they belong to either of those two groups.
Of course you didn’t even bother to read look!ninjas’ post before you started calling it “mealy-mouthed apologist shit.”
But I guess that’s to be expected, since all people who live in Scotland are illiterates.
What’s that? You say that’s a bogus claim? You’re actually being all politically correct and denying that all Scotsmen are illiterate? I have to wonder why you’re lying, then. You’d be a lot better off if you’d just be honest with yourself and admit that yes, there are some people in Scotland who don’t know how to read.
Look, I’ll make it simple for you: I shouldn’t have to defend myself against being a pedophile any more than you have to. But then again, you don’t have people telling you that if your equal rights under the law are recognized, then the logical next step is to extend those rights to pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Until that happens, you can take all your “arguments” about apologist bullshit and “interchangeable terms” and shove them up your ass.
Actually, you are almost totally incorrect. Pedophiles don’t have a gender preference. The gender of their victims is almost entirely predicated on availability, which means that most acts of pedophilia are between an adult and a child of the same gender, because our society tends to view children as “safer” if they’re being supervised by an adult of the same gender, especially when it comes to little girls. There is no overlap between pedophile, heterosexual, and homosexual. They are three distinct sexual orientations.
Wow. I’d argue with you some more, Evil Death, but my points have already been made for me. Just for the sake of saying it again, an adult male being attracted to an adult male is not the same thing as an adult male being attracted to a small child, whether or not that child is male. (Or, throw the word “female” in there. Same thing.) I’m a heterosexual female, which means that I am attracted to adult men, not little boys. If I were attracted to little boys, I’d be a pedophile. It’s in a category all its own.
(pointless nitpick)
Apologist? Apologist for who?
I say that homosexuality is not paedophilia, and you - a gay man - tell me to shove it? It must be terrible, being both gay and a moron.
Miller - It doesn’t matter whether paedophilia is a predilection or a sexuality; it is still trivially proven that there are gay paedophiles. If I’m right, then obviously there are. If I’m wrong, all you have to do is point at bisexuals. It is not rational to say that nobody has homo/hetero and paedo components to their sexuality when there are men and women roaming about with both homo and hetero components to theirs.
More to the point, I’m neither stupid nor unversed in human psychology. If I am in the process of “not getting it”, what are the odds of John Q Public getting it? Answer: none. You can’t convince the public at large that there’s no link between paedophiles and gays by denying that any gay is a paedophile, because all you’ll get in response is “Oh? What about that scoutmaster/priest they caught who’d been fiddling little boys for years?” The only way to do it is say that not all gays are paedophiles, and the vast majority who are not believe just as strongly as straights do that paedophiles, gay or otherwise, are revolting. You don’t even have to lie to do it, unless you don’t think paedophiles are revolting.