You can sleep with someone and derive little, if any, sexual pleasure from it. I could fuck Ann Coulter (I’d probably be puking or apologizing to my penis [and fiancee!] while I did it…) and I’d be at a loss for keeping an erection because she’s about as vile as they come to me. Naked Ann Coulter is about as appealing to me as naked Uranium. And desire could be taken to mean physical/sexual desire or monetary, in which case my willingness to have sex with someone derives from the money I get, not the happy feeling I get from being with them.
Desire does not mean you’re going to get to sleep with anyone.
Points taken–and agreed. I think it’s a question of degree and perspective. (Easy, huh?) In all probability it’s a balancing act that nobody can ever get “right”–because there ISN"T a “right”.
But we agree on this: just recognizing that people bear different scars from different experiences usually goes a long way. Somebody who’s been swept, terrified, into violence to shouts of “queer” won’t ever hear it the same way as someone who hasn’t. It doesn’t make anyone’s experience invalid or wrong, just different.
One person’s nightmare can be another’s anthem. Neither negate the other. But I think we’re agreed that there’s plenty of room–and need–to recognize those differences. Listening to most* individuals and actually hearing them is far more a cry to be heard than an imperial order.
in (rare) good moments I can barely muster distant, clinical sympathy for chronic whiners. The VAST majority of fellow muddled humans with painful histories they sometimes share entirely different critters. As you said, self-censorship in the name of kindness is a good thing. It costs little and gives much.
Or, as we of that generation learned, the personal is the political.
Look: for me, “queer” = “faggot” in offensiveness and connotation (depending on the circumstance: L. Frank Baum’s Queer Vistors from the Land of Oz ca 1903 for example has nothing to do with the issue at hand ). I ain’t gonna use it and I’d appreciate it if it wasn’t used around me (in person should we ever go out for a cuppa coffee or something.)
I like Crayon’s idea that a word is needed that describes non-hetrosexuality without being specific (like Ms. doesn’t identify marital status) but I don’t know about “queer” being it.
I was gonna agree that it’s a generational thing, but Gobear, Hastur and I are roughly the same age and we have three different positions on it, so I dunno.
Fenris, with a post that’s stunningly unhelpful in resolving things.
The word queer, when speaking of someone’s sexuality, was decidedly derrogatory when I was growing up. (I’m in my 40’s and have always lived in the Northeast, if anyone’s keeping track.) I don’t hear it used much at all any more in any sense. So why resurrect a word that carries baggage? Why not come up with a new word? This is a big message board with a lot of people from around the workd. So come up with a word with which everyone in this discussion feels comfortable and start using it. Ok, say everyone decided on the word “nothet” (Not Heterosuxual). Now we just need a few creative people to come up with a couple of emails to forward to “everyone in your address book or you’ll have three years of ambiguous sexuality.”
Seriously, have any organizations come up with a new word, something more inclusive, but without old baggage?
yes, Matt, you did. And I read that all of two to three minutes ago. You know they say that the memory is the first thing to…to…to do something or other…
So now we have a few words to toss out to the teeming millions.
*Allosexuel (or the Americanized version allosexual )
*Nothet
How about “non-hetero”? It’s plain, it’s simple, it’s encompassing. (Does it make my butt look fat, though?)
TVeblen - Very nicely put. There is certainly a good deal of understanding to be gained by having a generous spirit. On all sides.
Salem & Fenris - I still find it hard to understand how a term that has been generally embraced by the homosexual community should be dismissed outright.
The problem in my book with labels for non-mainstream sexual orientation that explicitly state something about hetero/bi/homosexuality is that it contributes to the myth that sexual orientation is describable solely on that single axis, and, somewhat less significantly but still significant, that sex-attraction-patterns are necessarily a significant component of orientation.
I believe the first of those to be flatly incorrect. Also, while I know a number of people who find sex to be a significant component of their orientation, I know a good-sized minority of people for whom it is not a factor at all, and also people like myself for which a single-sex attraction pattern is true, but not actually significant.
For what it’s worth, I prefer not to be referred to as “queer” despite being a transsexual lesbian. And I could care less about “inclusiveness” in the gay community (which I do not believe myself to be a part of, in any case). But I’ve rantedabout that before.
Just my personal opinion, but I don’t like “queer”. It just seems to carry a negative connotation for me…not as negative as “faggot”, but it still seems like a hostile word.
I don’t have much to respond to, but I’ll throw out my opinion on the matter…
I am perfectly comfortable using all the gay slurs in gay social situations, though “queer” isn’t very common among myself and friends. I have no problem descibing gay people as fags or homos, both of which are pretty commonly used as insults. I would have no problem describing someone as queer either…
BUT I don’t like the idea of any of the above terms becoming actual descriptors of someone’s sexual orientation. They’re slang terms and if asked to descibe my orientation to someone, I would never ever say I’m queer. I’m gay. That accurately describes me, it’s not too medical like homosexual, and not offensive to anyone I know of.
As for the argument that Queer is needed because it includes people excluded by the “gay” description: I don’t feel that another word is needed to classify non-straight people. Each group has it’s own title, and I don’t feel any need to be classified with transexuals or bisexual people under one umbrella term.
Back to the race comparison: For example, I completely understand and accept the casual use of the word nigger among some black people, but would not accept it as a way to describe someone’s race. Social use is acceptable and unoffensive to most, but I would be offended to see a Queer Club or Nigger Society at school.
Queer may have been “reclaimed” by some, but not me. I’m young and in my experience, it has the same connotations as fag or any other slur among most gay people my age. I don’t describe myself as Queer and wouldn’t want anyone else to, because I feel it’s inaccurate, groups me with people I am not associated with, and has a negative connotation to MOST people. Why would I want all that?
I call myself gay, because that is the most accurate term. And describe myself as part of “queer community,” because “the gay community” would be inaccurate. Hell, even our most mainstream newspapers here (Montreal) use “queer.” As far as I can tell, the debate ended in this city quite some time ago.
Some people have brought up that they don’t like the connotations of certain words – “bisexual” and “lesbian” in particular. But as someone who’s often had to fight the connotations of “gay,” I think this is universal for all us allosexuels.
And I doubt “queer” conjures up more positive images in people’s minds. Queer certainly doesn’t bring an image of monogamy to my mind. If anything, it suggests a more radical position than “bisexual” does.
As for ivylass’s suggestion that words like “queer” and “fag” could be used by us amongst ourselves, I would add just a little fine print: certain heterosexuals, who have proven their open-mindedness and acceptance to us, have special license to use these words – the key factor, after all, is the likelihood that the word is being used as an insult.
We could call this license, the Margaret-Cho/Betty-Degeneres/Polycarp rule
Well, someone better come up with a universal, non-offensive word. I consider “queer” to be offensive, and I’m straight! It sounds like, “a homosexual with a defect.” Of course, I’m a geezer. But I still won’t use it.
I usually describe myself as queer. It avoids the sexual history discussion, as people said before, so I don’t need to deal with “Yeah, I’m bi, but I’m in a long term relationship with a guy, and no, I’m not just calling myself bi because it’s trendy, so freakin’ lay off, ok!”
Queer is extremely common here, but then we are all a bunch of hippies in Madison. I know a number of men who call themselves fags, and most lesbians I know prefer to call themselves dykes. I never grew up with queer as an insult: usually gay or lesbo were the derrogatory words. Lesbian, gay and bisexual are all terms we learned in high school sex ed, and they feel quite clinical to me. Also, queer is a nice encompassing word for the folks who are LGB and don’t conform to gender constructs too, but who don’t want to read off a laundry list of terms whenever they describe their sexuality/gender.
But really, I think “sexual deviant” is the best all-encompassing word for us.
). I ain’t gonna use it and I’d appreciate it if it wasn’t used around me (in person should we ever go out for a cuppa coffee or something.)
)