Homosexuality - Culture and the collective psyche?

[Litee]

Originally Posted by frangipani

So let me pose the question: why do you think it is negative or subhuman? How do you think this exacerbates the acceptance of the LGBT?

Again, with each prod you change the way I think about the world. Such an accomplished philosopher. Spasiba, perfavor!

Anyway to your questions; why do I feel that it is negative or subhuman?
Well frankly, thinking about it, I’m stumped. I need to think about this for a longer duration of time, but I guess that it is the whole problem of the minority group doing something that the vast majority do not understand. As with shady looking drug addicts, thuggish looking bodybuilders and the like, people do not know what the motives of others are. The activities that they partake in don’t typify what the vast majority of people do, and as such these people would typically have limited knowledge of what, how, and why people like this do what they do. And in instinctive nature, the unknown is viewed as a threat. So people exercise caution with the things they don’t understand very well, and there are ‘preconceived notions’ (loved your expression, adding it to my repertoire) that cause people to think to themselves ‘Oh, that teenager could be a pickpocket’ or ‘Man, that bulked up Somali is a potential threat. Don’t want to be bumping into him.’

I think it is similar with said gays; people don’t understand gays generally because most people are heterosexual. As a result, when gays partake in relatively abnormal (not necessarily bad, just peculiar) activities that range from dressing ...the way they do (struggling to find an unbiased word for this) to becoming obsessive with pop music, etc, the majority of the population who don’t understand the motives behind these actions and view them negatively --> got to here and realised I don’t know why such actions are actually perceived as negative in the commoners eye, any thoughts? grown ups listening to children’s music shouldn’t be taken negatively, neither should dressing flamboyantly, as opposed to a teenager that looks like a pickpocket or a drug addict that could be mentally unstable. Sorry to draw on the stereotypes but that’s all I’ve got and I recognize full well that definitely not all of these people would be as negative, half my friends abuse drugs and they’re nice people, but I am trying to get into the commoners mindset. BUT BACK TO MY NOW PRESSING QUESTION – WHY ARE THESE BEHAVIORS TAKEN TO BE THREATENING? Maybe I have the wrong idea about why people are concerned with them... Enlighten me anyone?

Originally Posted by frangipani

Here again I ask you: why is the "flamboyant gay" comparable to a shady thug or drug user?

Answered at the end of the last paragraph – I don’t know. I think (most likely illogically, but I don’t see any other way out of this yet) that the negative feelings of hatred and the negative notions that are present in the commoners mind when gays are brought up, are also evoked when drug addicts and pickpockets are raised in conversation. I don’t know why/think that gays are threatening, which just points out my flawed logic, I guess, because people don’t just hate things because they don’t understand them.

As you can see, philosophy isn’t my strong point but I do enjoy learning it.

Originally Posted by frangipani

I'm not entirely sure that you are grasping "homophobia" here. It's similar to saying "I'm not trying to avoid being racist." Surely, I have preconceived notions of other races myself, but I wouldn't let that hamper my interactions with them, or worse, persecute them for these notions. I'd imagine you as a minority (both in ethnicity and gender) would understand that.

I don’t understand the first two sentences even with Google Translate... my problem lies with ‘homophobia’ being similar to saying ‘I’m not trying to avoid being racist’ I cannot bridge the two... I am very sorry. From there on however...

Yes, I too have preconceived notions of other races (i love the word preconceived now haha), and I definitely don’t let them change the way I act around people for these actions. And I do not persecute them for these notions. And I hope you understand that I am not doing this with flamboyant gays unless my communication is poor. In all of this I am trying to achieve an understanding of the collective flamboyant gay psyche and why said gays act the way they do, and I would of course not change the way I act around them even if I find it obviously distasteful. I wouldn’t show any disinterest in what they are saying or treat them any differently to if they were a conservative gay (well, maybe a LITTLE but not in any negative way, I try my hardest to be polite). I would of course formulate opinions of them and judge them to the very ends on the inside, which is another philosophical ideal that I am interested in on the side, but I would never change the way I act around them. Likewise, I am here to learn – not to spread hatred for them but to rather understand, and express my opinions as I develop them. I take it for granted that the people here are educated enough to know that I mean no offense when I say this (even if they were a flamboyant gay reading this thread!) because I am openly saying that I have undeveloped ideas and I’m open to interpretations.

Originally Posted by frangipani

What I think would have been much more interesting, I think, is if these same people had met a "flamboyant gay" who turned out to be as articulate, intelligent, and competent as you.

Not at all friends, you flatter me and I thank you deeply for the sentiments. I am not as amazing as you make me out to be. My wisdom pales in comparison to the shrewd ideas you conceive and the way you play the Devil’s Advocate is bloody amazing. I’m in awe that you’re able to logically contextualize, understand, analyse and explain such a dense philosophical issue is firmly grounded in a myriad of complex issues – stemming primarily in psychology. I am not as intelligent as you make me out to be though... I’d rather think myself a hard worker, because I am not particularly astute in many fields but I am open to most ideas and a broader scope of understanding. What you see in me is the compounded result of what many people such as yourself have instilled in me. Someone with the natural smarts would be able to think this all through without much assistance/reasoning from others, but I depend upon it.

Originally Posted by frangipani

I'll try to lay it out in layman's terms: what I talk about is heteronormativity (constricting "normalcy" to only heterosexuality) and misogyny (hatred of women, and in effect, "effeminacy") in the dominant oppressive culture. If we are to see gender as socially constructed and performed (which they are) then it wouldn't be hard to see that the ideas of "masculinity" and "femininity" are in flux, and in fact changeable. If you are studying to be a doctor, then you would know that (biological) sex itself isn't as fixed as we would like to think. Some people aren't exactly male or female--in that respect, how can gender and gender roles be so fixed as well? I know that this is a lot to think about, but I think you are capable and hey, you asked for it.

I had to re-read every sentence a good ten times before I got the idea, but here’s what I make of it:
I don’t think that hatred of woman is present in the dominant oppressive culture, but I definitely agree that heteronormativity is (and take this as coming from a gay individual with subsequently heavily biased views, I’ll be fair so take this into account). Masculinity and femininity are in flux... this means that the ideas are changing in postmodern culture, correct? If so then yes I agree, it’s called postmodern for a reason! I am not well grounded in these topics, but I can appreciate the changing nature of a scheme that’s grander than I can comprehend without research. I think, to an extent, that gender roles are fixed; the man as the provider and the woman as the nurturer, for the simple reason that the woman picks between a career and a family. It is seen in animals, the pack nature; the male lion hunts the food whilst the mother lion brings up her young. But I don’t understand how this is relevant in the broader scope; could you help bridge the concept of the changing nature masculinity and femininity to the topic of homosexual culture? If this sounds rude I apologize because I am aware that my connotations might be off and I do not want to offend; this is genuine curiosity and I would like to know.

Even with your explanatory paragraph I can’t bridge the two to form the connection... the dynamic nature of masculinity and femininity doesn’t really reference how a person’s “personality or experience“ is expressed through flamboyancy..
 

Originally Posted by frangipani

I hate to play the internalized homophobia card here, but I feel I must in your case. I understand somewhat, as I have a familiarity with Russia and its animosity against LGBT culture. Again, this is not an attack on you, but you have to be aware that you are propagating the same ideas used to curb your own rights to your orientation.

Again I am having trouble understanding – I take this to mean that my countries culture displays animosity towards gays and gay culture. I was going to bring this up myself, but you’ve already hit the nail on the head. My family and my country are heavily judgemental and quite elitist, and I have done a generally good job of abandoning that style of thinking especially since moving to Australia which was founded on immigration from all corners of the globe. But the bits that remain are the bits that I agree with! I do think that it is very strange behaviour and I dislike such people mostly for my belief that they cause animosity (another word I liked!) towards gay culture as a whole, which, as a gay person I do not like.

Originally Posted by frangipani

I think what you have to realize is that these aren't just "flamboyant gays" but people. They may not be the same as you, but so is everyone else. You may dislike their behavior and in the same vein, they may also see your "straightness" as offensive. I see no difference with this and, say, disliking the overbearing jock or the slutty bimbo. Stereotypes, or more importantly, people different from us exist, but our experience with them needn't be so hostile. They are humans still, just like you and me.

Agree completely, and I believe that hostility shouldn’t ever be displayed, because it would make the world so much better to live in. However, I believe that it is flamboyant gays behaviour that causes such hostility, and so moreover I wish that it is this which would stop and cull the hostility.

[Naroblas]

We don't dress differently or creatively because we are gay but because we are different and creative.

sluts don't dress slutty because they are sluts but because they are different and creative!

gangstas don't dress like rappers because they idolize rappers but because they are different and creative!

more jokes plz

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Naroblas

sluts don't dress slutty because they are sluts but because they are different and creative!

gangstas don't dress like rappers because they idolize rappers but because they are different and creative!

more jokes plz

i think you missed the point

[frangipani]

Originally Posted by Naroblas

sluts don't dress slutty because they are sluts but because they are different and creative!

gangstas don't dress like rappers because they idolize rappers but because they are different and creative!

more jokes plz

Ah, well I shouldn't have expected it to last long. Unsurprisingly, you miss Jamaca's simple logic: "People dress like x not because they are y but because they are x" as opposed to your "~(People dress like z not because they are z but because they are x)."

Originally Posted by jamaca

how are you sure all the wild expressively dressed guys are gay?

A good point, partly shows the mainstreaming of the supposedly "gay" culture.

And this identity lies in what, exactly?

But then how do you explain hardcore drugs in the "straight community" or gay people who don't use drugs?

Except this doesn't explain heterosexual children of unresponsive parents or homosexual children of nurturing parents.

I often finding myself playing Devil's Advocate because people should be willing to question and get to the root of their prejudices--something most advocates wouldn't attempt against anti-gay proponents, but at least I try.

Maybe I made a mistake with using "hatred" but the idea is there: if you agree with the idea of postmodernism, then you can't deny that the history of patriarchy and misogyny and heteronormativity still takes its toll in contemporary world. It is even obvious in your admission on your adherence to gender roles--why can't a woman have a career and raise a family at the same time? Why shouldn't a man be party to making the same decisions?

Your comparison to animals, I have to say, is flawed. Not all animals exhibit the same sexual roles (different from gender roles, might I add), and it is precisely human's capacity for reasoning and technology that we are able to veer away from the burdens of our physiology. (On that note, seeing as you did not respond to my comment on the intersex, I implore you and anyone else to give it a read.)

Maybe we haven't clarified enough the points for the discussion. If by flamboyancy, you mean flash and showiness, maybe it's a question of class. I assume by your admission to elitism, you might view this type of flamboyancy as a lower class crudeness? Or if it were to be the reverse, maybe this seems shamelessly bourgeois?

However, if by flamboyancy you mean effeminacy or girlishness, then this is where "internalized homophobia" comes into play. You yourself seem to be exhibiting the attitudes that you wouldn't want to be victim to. You are effectively siding with the heteronorm by declaiming "He/she is abnormal; I am not."

But if we are to talk about the struggle of the LGBT, to anti-gay proponents it doesn't matter if one is flamboyant or conservative or bisexual or transgender, the simple fact is that one has a homosexual orientation and is an abhorrence by default.

----

Of course, one can also be gay and yet flamboyantly butch or masculine. It doesn't occur to us because we have long stuck to the idea of "men being men." But what is a man? If it's simple biology: a person with a penis and testicles and xy chromosomes--again, the reality of the intersex would also bring these assumptions into question. Go outside biology and it's a whole different, diverse ballgame, especially given the changing social culture.

If we are to accept the changeability of gender (masculine and feminine) and gender roles (what expectations arise from being masculine or feminine), then we are to accept that the femme fairy is just as normal as the butch gym bunny is just as normal as anyone else. We express our gender and sexuality in different ways, which we would admit tie heavily into our personality and experience.

In the end we have to ask ourselves, why do we attribute effeminacy to negativity? Is it because we see women in a negative light? Are women/effeminate people weak? Promiscuous? A threat to manhood?

----

I can't fault you by falling prey to heteronormativity, patriarchy and misogyny because it is everywhere. But because we are able to understand these structures in a postmodern society, then we should also be able to change our attitudes and break these structures down. No one is asking you to like a lisp, whack hairstyles, body art, pop music or furry porn. But to say that these are detrimental to the acceptance of the LGBT is unreasonable, especially given that, again, many people who enjoy these things have surely laid and are still laying the groundwork for LGBT rights that are present today.

[IplayRandom]

Some gay people do and act as described because they want to show they are different. That often leads to social unease. And in the case where it's much, much more than any possible acceptance it can gain, it really makes me think it's just stupid. As if the gays do it on purpose, to play victim of sorts.

[jamaca]

your arguement is crucially flawed.

is it the obligation of the gay community to alter their behavior or is it the obligation of the majority to rid themselves of ignorance and become more tolerant people.



dunno why op feels like its the gays who should change their attitude.

[IplayRandom]

Because just like described in the op a gay can be a gay without all this acting and posing. Because it ultimatelly boils down to one thing: public opinion on gay people will change so much harder when the same people don't want to invite change themselves. Because there's already a barrier to overcome, which isn't a small one and yet it's such behaviour as well, which makes it even bigger.

[jamaca]

thats like saying black people shouldnt go around listening and playing their jazz music, us whites don't like it

as if its their fault that they're discriminated against and have to bend to your will to absolve them of the crime of being themselves.

[Litee]

I cannot understand the quote system for the life of me, so leaving it as it is because it's readable. I can't be bothered with the aesthetic side anymore, it has taken me 15 minutes to get it like it is now because I couldn't quote you (your whole post was in a quote box so I had to copy it out manually and failed abysmally)

Also I am very tired and need sleep, so my English will be sub-par today

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litee
Not at all friends, you flatter me and I thank you deeply for the sentiments. I am not as amazing as you make me out to be. My wisdom pales in comparison to the shrewd ideas you conceive and the way you play the Devil’s Advocate is bloody amazing.

Originally Posted by Litee
Not at all friends, you flatter me and I thank you deeply for the sentiments. I am not as amazing as you make me out to be. My wisdom pales in comparison to the shrewd ideas you conceive and the way you play the Devil’s Advocate is bloody amazing.

Frangipani:
I often finding myself playing Devil's Advocate because people should be willing to question and get to the root of their prejudices--something most advocates wouldn't attempt against anti-gay proponents, but at least I try.

MY RESPONSE
Why don’t advocates attempt against anti-gay proponents? Surely it would be a high priority and if it happened it would expose more of the arguments. Thanks a lot for trying if this is something you don’t want to do because I am learning a tonne.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Litee
I don’t think that hatred of woman is present in the dominant oppressive culture, but I definitely agree that heteronormativity is (and take this as coming from a gay individual with subsequently heavily biased views, I’ll be fair so take this into account).
...

I think, to an extent, that gender roles are fixed; the man as the provider and the woman as the nurturer, for the simple reason that the woman picks between a career and a family. It is seen in animals, the pack nature; the male lion hunts the food whilst the mother lion brings up her young. But I don’t understand how this is relevant in the broader scope; could you help bridge the concept of the changing nature masculinity and femininity to the topic of homosexual culture?
...

Even with your explanatory paragraph I can’t bridge the two to form the connection... the dynamic nature of masculinity and femininity doesn’t really reference how a person’s “personality or experience“ is expressed through flamboyancy..

Originally Posted by Litee
I don’t think that hatred of woman is present in the dominant oppressive culture, but I definitely agree that heteronormativity is (and take this as coming from a gay individual with subsequently heavily biased views, I’ll be fair so take this into account).
...

I think, to an extent, that gender roles are fixed; the man as the provider and the woman as the nurturer, for the simple reason that the woman picks between a career and a family. It is seen in animals, the pack nature; the male lion hunts the food whilst the mother lion brings up her young. But I don’t understand how this is relevant in the broader scope; could you help bridge the concept of the changing nature masculinity and femininity to the topic of homosexual culture?
...

Even with your explanatory paragraph I can’t bridge the two to form the connection... the dynamic nature of masculinity and femininity doesn’t really reference how a person’s “personality or experience“ is expressed through flamboyancy..

Frangipani
Maybe I made a mistake with using "hatred" but the idea is there: if you agree with the idea of postmodernism, then you can't deny that the history of patriarchy andmisogyny and heteronormativity still takes its toll in contemporary world. It is even obvious in your admission on your adherence to gender roles--why can't a woman have a career and raise a family at the same time? Why shouldn't a man be party to making the same decisions?

Your comparison to animals, I have to say, is flawed. Not all animals exhibit the same sexual roles (different from gender roles, might I add), and it is precisely human's capacity for reasoning and technology that we are able to veer away from the burdens of our physiology. (On that note, seeing as you did not respond to my comment on the intersex, I implore you and anyone else to give it a read.)

MY RESPONSE
I agree with the idea of postmodernism (I wasn’t aware that one could disagree). I can’t deny that male dominance and LGBT segregation is still present in the contemporary world – but both for different reasons.

With reference to male dominance, it is infinitely less pronounced. Women have rights now, and in Australia they are exactly the same rights as there are for men. I don’t think that misogyny is present by any standards in this country unless we have different stances on misogyny. In terms of politics, at least, women have equal rights. However, in my mum’s eyes (emphasis on female) she believes that my sister didn’t need to do as well academically as me because she could find a husband, whilst I must fit into the medicine/law/academia alumni category. This is not misogyny, I think. But in all fairness I have never encountered this word before so I do not grasp it’s connotations, so I am going by my best judgement, which tells me that it is not hatred for women but rather olden ideals reinforced. When it comes down to –present- postmodern culture however, women have equal rights. With generation Y, I think it ends.

My analogy to animals might be flawed but that is because it is an analogy which by definition makes it flawed. No-one is to say that women cannot have careers and children but themselves! If a woman wants to, then good luck to her (genuine, all power to them) but she is likely to struggle maintaining a serious job and successfully raising her child. Men, however, don’t have the burden of full time care in the vast majority of circumstances. As we are bound by mother nature, the woman must breast feed for a least a short period of time. That leaves only the man to fend for the family unless the woman is put under intense hardship, breastfeeding whilst still keeping a job up. Sure, she can do it, and the politics have reformed to allow this, because it is widely accepted among academia that there is not good reason for women to not have equal rights. This was widely protested by radicals such as Mary Shelley back in the day, and it is gradually more and more becoming an actuality (if it isn’t one as we speak) and only faint traces of olden times seep through to our culture in the form of people such as my mother, and maybe in conjunction with other (stereotyping) developing countries whom are closer to an industrial age.

Sure you can say that we have scientific supplements (technology – the advancements of science adapted to human benefit right there in action) for babies allowing mothers to work, but even given this I still think that it is much more LOGICAL for a male to continue to work and earn for the family whilst a mother cares.

I recognize that my views are biased by everyday symbolism – males are rugged sweaty workers that hunt animals etc whilst females a soft nurturers. Males are enterprise, females are teaching. I get the symbolism that is present, and even in casting it aside I still think that males are much more suited to providing for a family for the reason that mothers should be the carers.

I do believe that there is nothing stopping a child from being born, a father providing for it while the female works and using breast-milk supplements instead, but this just seems illogical when it can be easier if it were vice versa.
_____________________

With response to LGBT segregation, I feel that heteronormativity exists because of the behaviour of a select few (or vast majority of) gays that display flamboyancy, and the negative connotations that go with it. To bring things back into perspective, I think this because I understand that the general population feels negatively to the stereotype gay, but people who are like this who I have made the effort to get to know have revolutionized their opinions completely. This makes me think that as a non-flamboyant, conservative gay that it is the flamboyancy that evokes the culture of heteronormativity. As to >why< this display causes heteronormativity I am deeply interested – is it the misunderstanding of the unknown? What exactly causes it? - And I would very much appreciate if you can give insight into this idea if you agree with my reasoning.

But don’t get me wrong these pleasant digressions on other philosophical ideas are very evocative for me because I never get such levels of intellectual stimulation from my day to day environment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Litee
I think it is similar with said gays; people don’t understand gays generally because most people are heterosexual. As a result, when gays partake in relatively abnormal (not necessarily bad, just peculiar) activities that range from dressing ...the way they do (struggling to find an unbiased word for this) to becoming obsessive with pop music, etc, the majority of the population who don’t understand the motives behind these actions and view them negatively [...] WHY ARE THESE BEHAVIORS TAKEN TO BE THREATENING? Maybe I have the wrong idea about why people are concerned with them... Enlighten me anyone?

My family and my country are heavily judgemental and quite elitist, and I have done a generally good job of abandoning that style of thinking especially since moving to Australia which was founded on immigration from all corners of the globe. But the bits that remain are the bits that I agree with! I do think that it is very strange behaviour and I dislike such people mostly for my belief that they cause animosity (another word I liked!) towards gay culture as a whole, which, as a gay person I do not like.

Originally Posted by Litee
I think it is similar with said gays; people don’t understand gays generally because most people are heterosexual. As a result, when gays partake in relatively abnormal (not necessarily bad, just peculiar) activities that range from dressing ...the way they do (struggling to find an unbiased word for this) to becoming obsessive with pop music, etc, the majority of the population who don’t understand the motives behind these actions and view them negatively [...] WHY ARE THESE BEHAVIORS TAKEN TO BE THREATENING? Maybe I have the wrong idea about why people are concerned with them... Enlighten me anyone?

My family and my country are heavily judgemental and quite elitist, and I have done a generally good job of abandoning that style of thinking especially since moving to Australia which was founded on immigration from all corners of the globe. But the bits that remain are the bits that I agree with! I do think that it is very strange behaviour and I dislike such people mostly for my belief that they cause animosity (another word I liked!) towards gay culture as a whole, which, as a gay person I do not like.

Frangipani
Maybe we haven't clarified enough the points for the discussion. If by flamboyancy, you mean flash and showiness, maybe it's a question of class. I assume by your admission to elitism, you might view this type of flamboyancy as a lower class crudeness? Or if it were to be the reverse, maybe this seems shamelessly bourgeois?

However, if by flamboyancy you mean effeminacy or girlishness, then this is where "internalized homophobia" comes into play. You yourself seem to be exhibiting the attitudes that you wouldn't want to be victim to. You are effectively siding with the heteronorm by declaiming "He/she is abnormal; I am not."

But if we are to talk about the struggle of the LGBT, to anti-gay proponents it doesn't matter if one is flamboyant or conservative or bisexual or transgender, the simple fact is that one has a homosexual orientation and is an abhorrence by default.

MY RESPONSE
I am not elitist, or at least I very much hate to think of myself this way. If I am, and I don’t think I am, then it would be something I would attempt to change very quickly. I used to have such a way of thinking, but it was illogical, and even moreso when coming to this country.

Anyway, I don’t think flamboyancy is a lower class crudeness – I am developing an understanding of why it occurs due to other posts in this thread, and the very root of it was from yours when I said it was a sagacious observation that you explained to me that it was because they find salvation in the culture they practise. I don’t think it is crudeness at all. I don’t see the value in it and I don’t appreciate it because I believe it encourages heteronormativity, but I don’t think they are doing it to be crude.

They are also girlish – which is part of the culture. I think everything you are saying is encapsulated in the culture, flash showiness and girlishness (except for being crude). And it is this that I think causes heteronormativity. And I don’t necessarily like heteronormativity, obviously, as a gay, and as I think now that the root cause of it is the culture/psyche I dislike the psyche. It very much is a matter of the ‘He/she is abnormal, I am not’ although not through an elitist lens. It’s more of a ‘He/she is behaving in a way that is causing my sexuality to be frowned upon, why can’t they be conservative as I am, because it seems to work wonders in abolishing the stereotype shrouding peoples minds’.

IMO anti-gay proponents (another fantastic word, proponents) view gays this way as a RESULT of the stereotype. Some of my close, seemingly understanding friends were once anti-gay proponents, and I have had it explained to me that my character was what changed their opinions because they realised not all gays where ‘whack’. This is why I started this topic, because it was the topical(?) discussion that caused me to decide to find out more about the culture. It never really bothered me until I learned that people changed their opinions of the whole after meeting me; and from what my friend said it seemed she wasn’t the only one – guys and girls alike changed their opinions.

FRANGIPANI
----

Of course, one can also be gay and yet flamboyantly butch or masculine. It doesn't occur to us because we have long stuck to the idea of "men being men." But what is a man? If it's simple biology: a person with a penis and testicles and xy chromosomes--again, the reality of the intersex would also bring these assumptions into question. Go outside biology and it's a whole different, diverse ballgame, especially given the changing social culture.

If we are to accept the changeability of gender (masculine and feminine) and gender roles (what expectations arise from being masculine or feminine), then we are to accept that the femme fairy is just as normal as the butch gym bunny is just as normal as anyone else. We express our gender and sexuality in different ways, which we would admit tie heavily into our personality and experience.

In the end we have to ask ourselves, why do we attribute effeminacy to negativity? Is it because we see women in a negative light? Are women/effeminate people weak? Promiscuous? A threat to manhood?

MY RESPONSE
Agree completely with first paragraph. I try my hardest to not be governed by concrete ideas instilled in me by my family, country, and the world around me. Though a doctor’s mindset, this is especially true. I do have trouble abandoning the connotations I associate with males and females though. However, (be it through engrained notions from my upbringing) I still think the female logically becomes the nurturer whilst the male is the breadwinner through the limitations of our physiology. Technology is helping to overcome this, and I have no doubt that in the future when we are crafting our own children from genes and we don’t even need the reproductive system – just genetic material - that singles will have their own children and manage fine with the technologies available to them then that will allow them to successfully parent a child without the need for a mother. However, in the present time and place, I still think that it LOGICALLY ensues that the female is the nurturer of the child with the male is the breadwinner. OF COURSE THIS IS NOT DEFINING – People have EVERY RIGHT and SHOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT to go about parenting as they please – at least in my country. But I suggest that it is uncommon that males are the nurters and females the breadwinners for a reason – other than history/patriarchy/misogyny! Logical convenience!

Frangipani
----

I can't fault you by falling prey to heteronormativity, patriarchy and misogyny because it is everywhere. But because we are able to understand these structures in a postmodern society, then we should also be able to change our attitudes and break these structures down. No one is asking you to like a lisp, whack hairstyles, body art, pop music or furry porn. But to say that these are detrimental to the acceptance of the LGBT is unreasonable, especially given that, again, many people who enjoy these things have surely laid and are still laying the groundwork for LGBT rights that are present today.

MY RESPONSE
Jeez I must really have the wrong connotations of misogyny. But to me, it seems the same as calling rape to a simple tap on the shoulder to get a person’s attention. Is the connotation true – that misogyny can be applied to effectively anything – or is it more liberal than that? And I guess it may be true, even though I hate the fact that I am, a victim to social tropes. I would like to be independent from that, but even in my own views which I think are logical (and remember that I am definitely ready to be convinced otherwise) I believe the things which I say, at least in this stage of the game. It is everywhere, but it kinda sucks that I can’t be free from it and become the radical thinker that I want to be some day.

Very elegant argument in the last few sentences. I have no idea how to combat this, it seems flawless.

I would say that it is reasonable that they are detrimental to the acceptance of LGBT because of personal experience – it seems to be these factors that cause people to have negative views of them in society from what I have heard with my own ears. I guess people who enjoy those things have been working to LGBT rights, the probabilities against it are incredibly low. I don’t know what to do with this information, I can’t contextualize it... I can’t help but thinking “So what?” but I know I am missing the broader scope of what you mean with that. This is VERY shameful arrogance, because I know you mean something by that but I don’t know what you are playing at and I wish I did... can you please explain why this makes mine an unreasonable argument? I don’t understand how it is relevant if people who enjoy these things work towards LGBT rights.


And with all of this I want to thank you so much for all the insight you’ve given me and the time you’ve taken out of your day to help further my education. I hope I’ve given you some food for thought as well, and that it’s not like taking candy from a baby or trapping a mouse with some bait/food when I make inconsistent/superfluous points. Can I ask how you’ve become so detached from the mundane existence that typifies our culture and been enlightened so as to be able to effortlessly capture the cogs of our world, from psychology to culture to history in a snap of the fingers? All of this is a mindfuck for me and would take me eons to conclude, and you are awe-spiring to me.

[Naroblas]

Ah, well I shouldn't have expected it to last long. Unsurprisingly, you miss Jamaca's simple logic: "People dress like x not because they are y but because they are x" as opposed to your "~(People dress like z not because they are z but because they are x)."

you forgot one thing : sarcasm was present in my answer.

[jamaca]

"more jokes plz" sounded sarcastic which added seriousness to the rest of your post

[IplayRandom]

Originally Posted by jamaca

thats like saying black people shouldnt go around listening and playing their jazz music, us whites don't like it

as if its their fault that they're discriminated against and have to bend to your will to absolve them of the crime of being themselves.

Pretty fail comparison though and still quite exaggerated. One thing you need to consider before defending such position is that gays can still be gays. I don't mind a gay guy who doesn't want to put a flashy sign "I am gay" on him. This is something that concerns one's personal life, it doesn't belong in public display. If they want to show it, and by this I mean the fancy way of showing it, then I cannot be blamed for not accepting it.

[God of Death]

Originally Posted by IplayRandom

If they want to show it, and by this I mean the fancy way of showing it, then I cannot be blamed for not accepting it.

[IplayRandom]

I can understand your desire for trolling, but at least do read what the topic you are trying to troll is about. Ok ?

[Amergin's Cola]

Why do people flip their shit about ultra-flamboyant gay men, but with ultra-macho/hetero guidos and assholes they don't bat an eye?

You have a double standard because you innately think homosexuality is weird. Stop thinking of it as weird and of homosexuals as a group, and start thinking of homosexuals as regular people, like everyone else. Some are flamboyant, most are not.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Amergin's Cola

Why do people flip their shit about ultra-flamboyant gay men, but with ultra-macho/hetero guidos and assholes they don't bat an eye?

I can find both very annoying. It depends on the level. I have a really high tolerance, but it can get ridiculous for both a very flamboyant homo and a very masculine hetro.

You have a double standard because you innately think homosexuality is weird.

They are not weird. They are just different. Yes it can be weird having to witness two men make out. I mean I am not going to be disgusted if I see two gay men kiss, but I am not going to stare.

I've imagined kissing a guy and I just wince. Its not something I would like to do. Its not something that excites me. In fact I find it a bit weird for ME to kiss a dude. If others want to do it then thats fine.

[Amergin's Cola]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

They are not weird. They are just different. Yes it can be weird having to witness two men make out. I mean I am not going to be disgusted if I see two gay men kiss, but I am not going to stare.

I've imagined kissing a guy and I just wince. Its not something I would like to do. Its not something that excites me. In fact I find it a bit weird for ME to kiss a dude. If others want to do it then thats fine.

I'd agree with you on "It's just different" if people had the same feelings of disgust with lesbians, or even heterosexual flamboyant (read: metrosexuals) men.

But it's just two men kissing. There's really nothing different about it. Just two men as opposed to a man and a woman.

I think it's just a lack of maturity in these folks who can't handle gay men, honestly.

[IplayRandom]

The described clownish behaviour of this type of gay men in the OP is the thing people can't handle and approve. It's not gay men as a whole. Stop putting words in people's mouth, really.

[Litee]

Originally Posted by IplayRandom

The described clownish behaviour of this type of gay men in the OP is the thing people can't handle and approve. It's not gay men as a whole. Stop putting words in people's mouth, really.

Thank you

Guys please read my bloody post before you reply to it, and if those are just unrelated comments about homosexuality generally then it's offtopic.

[jamaca]

you live in a country with freedom of speech and expression, as a consequence some people are going to say things or do things that go against your sensibilities or taste ,mainstream hip hop music has devolved into some stupid juvinile excuse for music but it doesnt mean poeple don't have every right to listen to it and play it below acceptable volumes. In saying so, you have every right to complain but if you have any balls why don't you confront the actual gays with your problem, afterall its the honourable thing to do and sure beats bitching behind their backs.

ultimately its really a sign of how lucky you are that you have troubles with such pedantic issues