Since lissener has commandeered this thread into another “Everyone’s a homophobe but me” thread, can I have it closed? I think his vile behavior has proved my point…
Since lissener has responded pretty patiently to a thread addressed specifically to him, and even acquired an apology and a rescinded accusation, along with a pretty decent show of support, and this didn’t turn into the pile-on I was hoping for, [whine]can you please close this thread?[/whine]
lissener, I typed up a long post to you this morning. The hamsters said, and I quote, “Num num num!”
Suffice it to say that I think your view of sexuality is overly categorized and essentialist. My experience, and those of people around me, is that some people have a much more fluid sexuality.
Nonetheless, it’s a debatable point, and it’s not rude at all to debate it; I think the argument is fascinating. I took umbrage before not with your disagreeing with me, but with the rude and dismissive manner with which you treated my point.
Daniel
Are you saying you have gay tendencies, JerseyDiamond? If so, it explains a lot.
Daniel, I’m the one who’s always saying just because you have gay sex doesn’t mean you’re gay, so I’m not sure where you get “categorized and essentialist.”
I’m just saying you and I interpret your friends’, um, journeys differently. Your interpretation strikes me as more “categorized and essentialist”: you suggest that as a person experiments here or there, his “category” must also be changed: if he’s in a gay relationship, then he is ipso facto a homosexual; if he’s in a relationship with a woman, then he is ipso facto 100% heterosexual. I’m the one making case for more fluid behaviors withing a person’s sexuality. I’m saying that the person whose behaviors vary widely is learning more about his own sexuality; that their sexuality may be evolving, but it’s not derailing or becoming other, as you suggest. THat strikes me as a far more rigid interpretation.
Ash, not to paint with too broad a brush, but a pet theory of mine is the, um, “pro-choice” homophobes are revealing a lot more about themselves than they think; that the reason they’re so sure it’s a choice is because they have made an active choice to stay in the closet, and since they CHOOSE to live as a heterosexual, then it must the same kind of choice for everyone.
This theory (again, no cite; my own theory) is certainly not contradicted by the research that shows that many homophobic men have secret homosexual desires.
I’m just sayin.
That’s not at all how I’m defining their sexual experiences. Actually, I don’t define their experiences at all: I let everyone define their own experiences.
With few exceptions, the only meaningful definition of Joe’s sexual identity is the one Joe gives it himself. If Joe tells me he’s gay, then by God, I consider him gay. If Joe tells me he’s straight, then by God, I consider him straight. If Joe tells me he’s florasexual, then by God – well, you get the idea.
When someone’s sexual self-identification changes, I tend to believe them. I don’t say, “a-HA! You were straight all along, and only THOUGHT you were lesbian!” or “Gotcha, big boy! Who’s het now?”
The folks in my examples changed their sexual self-identification. I, and you, have no reason to believe that they were (or are currently) deluded about their actual sexuality.
Whether someone experiments is immaterial: a guy who identifies as straight and gets the occasional blowjob from a man is, as far as I’m concerned, straight; if he identifies as bisexual then he is, as far as I’m concerned, bisexual. A woman who has never so much as smooched another woman only needs to tell me she’s bisexual for me to believe her.
I consider your viewpoint categorized and essentialist because you’re twisting what I talk about. When I describe a friend’s five years as a lesbian, you refer to that as “experimenting here or there.” None of the examples I put forth can seriously be considered experiments: these are all people whose long-term relationship patterns changed fundementally, either preceding or succeeding a change in their own sexual identification.
Daniel
Ah, exactly the responses I expected. lol
Lissener, you are a silly being.
of course everyone who doesn’t agree with you must be gay someway or somehow. That is so typical.
Yes, I am not gay, and I choose to be with a man because that is the way God intended it and I love him. Works out great, doesn’t it.
Lord Ashtar, seeing some woman as beautiful means “gay tendencies”? shrugs ok
What it means is that some women are beautiful, and just like men, I do not find them revolting in any way. I don’t crave and desire to sleep with them, just like I don’t crave and desire to sleep with men.
That is the great thing about being human and living in America, we get to choose how we live. And this is what I choose.
I couldn’t be happier. I just hope that people like you, Lissener, can find happiness and not stress about nothing all the time.
To a certain extent, you’re right. On the other hand your argument is strictly semantic.
I have a friend who was raised Catholic. After much struggle, he came out of the closet at 19. Then, at 21, he decided, after much prayer, that he was really straight, and got married. He was “straight” for 7 years, until he just couldn’t stand the misery anymore. He got a divorce and fell in love with a man (a very close friend of mine, which is when I came into the picture). Within three years, he’d prayed himself back into the closet. Last I heard, he was still leading a “straight” life, but doing a lot of anonymous cruising.
I’ve know probably a dozen and a half men and women who’ve undergone similar changes of what they call themselves.
Your “semantics trumps one’s true nature” paradigm would suggest that all you have to do is sanitize your language of certain nouns and, voila, you’re straight today and gay tomorrow.
Life isn’t a Mad-Lib story, Daniel. Your friends have struggled to know themselves. That doesn’t change the fact that I hope each of them, some day, will find a place of comfort within which they can be themselves fully and truly.
Trust me, hon, people like you no longer cause me any stress.
I am glad to here that.
Oh, lissener, now you’re getting insulting again, and again you’re doing it by twisting what I’m saying. Nowhere did I imply that semantics trump true nature; in fact, I deny your whole “true nature” paradigm.
How the hell do you think you’ll know someone’s true nature better than they know it themselves?
And when you say:
it’s arrogant in the extreme for you to assume that they weren’t comfortable being themselves fully and truly at any given point.
Again, you’re assuming that everyone is either always straight, always gay, always bi, etc. What evidence to support this do you offer? That directly contradicts my experience.
Or am I really misunderstanding you, and you do accept that some people’s sexual preference really and truly changes?
Daniel
LISSENER –
You seem to believe that a person can be the rankest of assholes to people, and yet still demand that those same people still care about the cause the person believes in. Human nature dictates that this doesn’t follow. If people think you’re a jerk, they very likely are not going to care about your pet cause. You (generic you) think gay people should be allowed to marry? But you’re an asshole – who cares what you think? Not being allowed to marry causes you pain? You’re an asshole – who cares whether you’re in pain? It takes extraordinary patience and perception to continue to offer assistance to people who make themselves obnoxious or distasteful. Most people won’t bother. And believe me – to achieve true equality for homosexuals in U.S. society, you need the assistance of straights, if only because we outnumber you so greatly. As GOBEAR said, the risk you run is that people will confuse you with your cause, and that because they dislike you, they will care less about what you believe in. Further, their desire to disassociate themselves with you will lead them to disassociate themselves with your cause. But when a person points out this obvious cause-and-effect, you react by – surprise! – calling that person a homophobe.
To me, you come across as a pretty garden-variety militant. You have concluded that those who are not with you are against you, and that those who are against you are worthy only of contempt. Anyone who is not your friend is your enemy, and you vow to treat them as such. Which is fine as far as it goes, however, but seems to me to be fairly non-productive.
The truth is that a vast segment of American society is made up of people who don’t give a lot of thought to the issue of gay rights (because it doesn’t impact them) and who are undecided about what, if anything, should be done to achieve social and legal parity for homosexuals. Heck, I hazard to guess that I’m given it a lot more thought than Joe Average Straight American, and I’m not 100% sure how I feel about it.
There’s a vast pool of Undecideds, and we’re not all salvering homophobes. Some of us don’t consider ourselves to be homophobes at all. Yet you dismiss anyone who doesn’t adhere to your personal dogma, by virtually declaring that any one who is not your friend is your enemy. In doing so, you appear to be overlooking the fact that if you invite people to fuck right off, they very likely will – but they will not be fucking off in the direction of the things you’d like them to know, or consider, or embrace. These are the people – we are the people – whose help you need in order to reach the place you want to go. You may have sound personal reasons for dismissing us, but you are not necessarily wise to do so.
It’s hard to speak truth to power. And there’s an undeniable value in doing so without sugar-coating it, and in feeling like you are standing up by demanding what you know you are entitled to and by dismissing those who appear to be in your way. I’m not suggesting you kiss anyone’s ass. But there are a lot of people out there who will listen to reasoned discourse and who can be educated. Just, apparently, not by you. Which, again, is fine; you feel you’ve done your part, let someone else do it for a while.
But if I were you I would not be surprised to find you’re meeting a lot more homophobes these days. Some really aren’t, but you’ll see them that way anyway. And some, who really weren’t may well be after being shat upon by you.
No, it contradicts your interpretation.
I accept that it evolves; I’m not comfortable with the word changes, in the way you want to use it.
And I’m not assuming “that everyone is either always straight, always gay, always bi, etc.” I’m assuming that everyone is always themselves, and that few of us don’t undergo a process of evolution in our understanding of that self.
Your paradigm seems to be that one experience replaces another; that by labeling yourself B, you’re no longer A.
My paradigm is that these experiences accumulate and layer, not that they replace each other, as you seem to suggest.
And also:
And followed by:
No comment necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Jodi, with respect, you fail to convince me.
You suggest that, since the majority of the population is not militantly pro-gay-rights, then it behooves me to tailor my demeanor when discussing that subject to their sensibilities and sensitivities; that I’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, in other words.
My point is that I DON’T GIVE A SQUISHY FUCK what the majority thinks. We have a constitution that is set up to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, and I’m through asking nicely.
If the asshole homophobes “in power” want to use me as an excuse to try to subvert the American values that dictate that I receive equal rights along with every heterosexual citizen, that’s only gonna hold for so long.
Eventually things will change. But they will change when change is DEMANDED, not when enough homophobes become impressed with how polite most homos can be.
I don’t give a fuck if my stance on this ruffles some people’s feathers. It’s time to stop elevating their desire not be ruffled over my RIGHTS as a citizen of this country.
If you’re (universal you) ruffled by “militant homos”–get used to it. It’s only gonna get worse before it gets better.
LISSENER –
Actually, I’m not talking about what is necessary for you to do, only what seems to me to be the smart thing to do. And even to that end, I would only suggest tailoring your demeanor to “their” sensibilities to the extent of recognizing that people are not inclined to talk to (or listen to) jerks.
I UNDERSTOOD THIS. YOUR TOTAL LACK OF CARING OF THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITTY IS CLEAR. The question I am raising is whether it is not also short-sighted.
Yeah, that’s what it’s set up for, all right. But who decides what it actually says? Militant lil’ ol’ you? Dream on. The constitution is interpreted by lawmakers and judges, few of whom are minorities. Look at the existing U.S. Supreme Court: Which of those old white men and women represents your point of view? Your “through asking nicely”? I think that in return you’ll soon find people are done saying “NO” nicely. Which, granted, will have removed all hypocrisy from the discourse (if discourse indeed you can call it), but will you be any better off?
I find this touching; naive, but touching. It seems to indicate that you don’t realize just how far out of power you are. You think gay people can get equality by DEMANDING it? You think you can do it all on your own? You are less than 10% of the population. Legally and socially speaking, you can’t get jack without the help of straight people.
Yes, your rights. Like the right to be married – oh, wait. You don’t have that right. Or, the right to be be legally recognized as next of kin for your partner – wait, you don’t generally have that right either, do you? You must mean the right to not be discriminated against in hiring – but no, that couldn’t be what you’re talking about, because you don’t have that right either. And believe me: Your lack of these rights does not ruffle the average straight American’s feathers at all. Because they don’t give a rat’s about this issue. The question is: How do you make them care about it? By educating them? Or by being a shithead and pissing them off?
I’m not ruffled by it. It impacts my life very little. And MY life – complete with all those rights you do not currently have – is unlikely to get any worse if I just quit talking to you. The question is: Is your life going to get any better?
I respect your right to be a “militant homo” if you choose. I just question the efficacy of militant homo-ness in advancing the agenda I assume you’d like to see advanced. Again, this is not an all or nothing proposition: I am not saying you must kiss the asses of those you see as oppressing you. But I am saying you appear to slap that “oppressor/homophobe” label on people at the drop of a hat, and then to dismiss everyone you’ve just labelled. I’m just having trouble seeing why that’s not a really stupid thing to do.
**
that is the smart strategy.
and that is why you fail.
[quote[ We have a constitution that is set up to protect the minority from the whims of the majority, and I’m through asking nicely.[/quote]
so you will let your impatience doom your kind to decades of intollerance. Nice.
I
Wrong, it will hold out indefinately, the harder you drive people away from your cause.
no thanks to you.
no.
The issue isn’t your right to have sex with whoever you want, the issue is making people care that you have that right. And screeching “HOMOPHOBE!!” at every passerby is not going to help.
If it does get worse, i predict a rise in dead “militant homos” also. Are you prepared for that as well?
In conclusion, shut the fuck up, your anti-hetero stance destroys any chance you have of getting your rights.
Jodi, if someone says my behavior is what makes the difference between their being anti-gay-rights or pro-gay-rights, they’re lying.
My moderating my tone is not gonna convince ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON to vote PRO-gay-rights if they were, to now, ANTI-gay-rights.
and you call ME naive?
And LET the judges drop their mantle of hypocrisy and shout NO: that’s when the change will occur. It’s only the conniving at hyocrisy–the “gentleman’s agreement”–that keeps the status quo static. If irritants like me can get one single judge to shed the protection of hypocrisy–picture Jack Nicholson pushed over the edge in A Few Good Men–then we’ll have accomplished something.
In other words, the insidious connivance of your last post has served, not to alter my position, but to strengthen it by negative example.
This LIE that you’re pushing that Uncle Tomism is the only way to get things done is far more dangerous than Fred Phelps.
LISSENER –
I’m not talking about your personal behavior, so we can dispense with you preemtively calling hypothetical people liars for taking issue with you personally. I am saying that encountering a strident, obnoxious, rude, insulting person as the apparent personification of the gay rights agenda very likely will push those who are undecided away from that side – and, by obvious extension, towards the other side. Please keep in mind that your continued inequality and oppression does not require any overt action by the uncommitted majority – all it requries is their continued apathy.
I don’t see any basis for saying that. And even if it is true for those who were, to now, ANTI-gay-rights, you are again leaving out the many, many people who are neither pro nor con, because it’s not an issue that touches them, and they are not required to be either “pro or con” on any issue they see no reason to care about. What will you do with them? Lure them pro? Or push them con?
Not all indecision is hypocrisy. Sometimes it’s just indecision. I myself am undecided on some of the larger issues of gay rights; I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite. Or a homophobe. And if irritants like you FAIL to push anyone “over the edge,” but instead only succeed in pushing everyone away from your cause – again, are you any better off? If so, how? And why are we talking about judges now anyway? You don’t appear to confine your “fuck anyone who doesn’t agree with me” attitude to judges.
Connivance with what? Again, your every post states “If you are not with me, you are against me.” Here, you have virtually said that I am “conniving” with someone simply by disagreeing with you. Do you truly not see how short-sighted that is? And you still have not answered my question: How does your position or your actions advance your agenda at all? Do you think anyone of the undecideds, much less any of the “cons,” walks away from a discussion with you thinking “my god, he’s right. His contemptuous dismissal of me has dropped the scales from my eyes!”? Because I kind of doubt it.
Wowsers. 
More dangerous that Fred Phelps, huh? It’s a “dear diary” moment for me, then. The truth is, I never said “Uncle Tomism” was “the only way to get things done.” What I have said, or tried to say, is that being an alienating asshole is 99 times out of 100 not the way to get people to help you. And I regret to inform you again: You do need our help. You cannot get where you want to go without it; you have neither the resources nor the necessary sheer numbers. You need to make Middle America care about the rights of homosexuals. The question is, how will you do that? I respectfully submit that telling them collectively to fuck off is not the greatest strategy for accomplishing it.
I also respectfully suggest that engaging in the level of hyperbole by which anyone disagreeing with you is a homophobe, and anyone who suggests consensus-building is a “more dangerous than Fred Phelps,” is not the way to get anyone to take you seriously.