s

GBTGBT Posts: 30
edited August 2015 in LeakyCon

by GBT
«1

Comments

  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    d
    by GBT
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    Yes and no. Our sexual identities, genders, and bodies are produced historically and socially. Does heterosexual behavior exist? Of course. But it's not an especially useful way of classifying people. It's a bad identification tool. 

    There is, in fact, a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to this question, called queer theory. You should look it up.

    I think you might be interested, also, in reading Michel Foucault's A History of Sexuality.

    Or the work of my friend Judith, here


    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    v
    by GBT
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    @GBT I think there were some typos in your above comment that made it hard for me to understand the crux of your argument. But yes, one of the modern criticisms of the emphasis we place on scientific and empirical studies is that these studies are often biased and have an ideological agenda. There's actually a TERRIFIC book about this called Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.

    The term "queer" has been reappropriated  by the non-"heterosexual" community, and therefore is quite different from calling it "faggot theory." In fact, a large number of people now identify as "queer," (which, to me, misses the point of a lot of queer literature, but that's neither here nor there)... In any event, "queer" is not used by most people as a derogatory term anymore, but then again queer theory just a name for a kind of school of thought. If you don't like calling it by that name there's nothing wrong with that. Some authors I'd recommend (besides Foucault and Butler): Lee Edelman, Sheila Jeffries, Lauren Berlant.


    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    s
    by GBT
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    I see. So you believe in the concept of masculinity, but don't think heterosexuality is a part of it? I'm beginning to think you're actually quite familiar with the queer movement and just inelegantly dismiss it as "effeminate."

    Otherwise, no, I don't "understand about males and masculinity damn." Why don't you enlighten me?
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    s
    by GBT
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    Again, you've lost me. I'm not trying to be rude, but can you please make an effort to use proper grammar and to spell check? I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying... 

    To extrapolate, the reason I asked about masculinity and heterosexuality is that the masculine ideal typically has a lot to do with heterosexuality. As someone who subscribes to the queer school of thought, I think ideals of masculinity hardly ever account for the reality of our behaviors. Which is to say, behavior isn't gendered and gender seems somewhat inadequate as a means of classification or identification.
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    d
    by GBT
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    d
    by GBT
  • SANTA_ATE_CHICAGOSANTA_ATE_CHICAGO PennsylvaniaPosts: 2,637 ✭✭✭
    If I might offer my humble opinion, why don't we ask people and believe them? Example:
    Person: Hey Santa, you identify as male right?
    Me: Yup.
    Person: And you are interested in dating women only?
    Me. Yup.

    Conclusion: Heterosexuality exists.
    When is a door not a door? When someone steals the hinges.
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    d
    by GBT
  • LukeLuke Resident Spam Cleaner DublinPosts: 7,877 Admin
    Well I've only ever felt sexually attracted to women, so I'd conclude that heterosexuality exists. Even if that's a product of 100000 years of evolution it still stands that it exists today

    Did it always exist? We don't know. Your argument about culture creating it could also be applied to the past when the social ideal was to be bi ("as nature intended", does that not sound like how some people argue for heterosexuality now)

    You can argue for hours about how "you only believe that because you were told to" (in more words than that) and we can argue back saying no, but the problem there is that both of us are coming from a position that neither of us can prove. You, from saying that society influenced it, and us from saying that "hey, maybe it exists anyway".

    It's an interesting point, and one worth talking about, but outside of an academic interest there's not much point to it. Correct me if I'm wrong
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    f
    by GBT
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    Luke said:

    It's an interesting point, and one worth talking about, but outside of an academic interest there's not much point to it. Correct me if I'm wrong

    The problem with this is that you're taking certain things about sex, gender, and sexuality for granted. There's a lot of social context for the statement "I'm a heterosexual man." What, for instance, do we mean when we--as heterosexual men--are able to admit that another man is "good looking" or "attractive?" We cannot make these statements without referring to some kind of sexual desire, even if that desire is not our own. So it seems to me a little more complex than straight=attracted only to opposite sex. 

    And this whole question of being attracted "to the opposite sex" is also loaded with very social/political subtext. It assumes, for one thing, the gender binary. And it also assumes that gender is something fixed, or stable.

    It's possible, for instance, that one of the women you've been sexually attracted to was actually intersex and didn't even know it. Granted, this is unlikely, but many intersex people do not know right away that they are in fact intersex. What if the women you're attracted to used to be a man? What if you're attracted to a woman, and she has surgery to make her a man? What if she hasn't had surgery, but still "identifies" as a man? What if the man a woman is attracted to has a testosterone deficiency and has to take hormonal injections so as to produce/maintain his biological masculinity? Obviously these are somewhat trivial examples, but the point is that gender is fluid, and words like "heterosexual" have at best an unstable meaning. 

    As to the charge of all this being academic navel-gazing, I find it unfortunate people generally think this way about it. There are real consequences for real people, when, for instance, we operate on newborn intersex children, putting their lives in danger for the sake of giving them "normal" genitalia. There are real consequences for trans people and gay people because we're committed as a society to a very antiquated way of thinking about gender. The way we identify is causing real suffering in the world. It's something to think about anyway. 
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    GBT said:
    Yes the masculine ideal is typically being used in manipulating people into this heterosexuality religious belief, look at how they portray Gay/Bi males as effeminate 98% of the time. Just one example. Most real BI males would never come out as it would kill 1/2 his sex life.

    Well why will no one do anything? And Please before you do Change the Name really what do you think the Media will make this look like? This might be one of the most important areas of science right now just think of the Problems males 14-26yo have and them understand much of this could be because we altered their normal sexuality.

    Lol, it's really not up to me to "change the name." Queer theory is already an established branch of philosophy. I couldn't change it if I wanted to.

    Again, I'm not really following your argument. Your main problem is that gay men are portrayed effeminately in our culture? And if so, why isn't the solution to this problem to change how we think about gender? Instead of placing emphasis on how gay people are portrayed (masculine or feminine), why not instead emphasize the need for changing the way we portray people at all? Why not seek to eradicate these (biologically and socially misunderstood) categories of male/female, straight/gay?
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    d
    by GBT
  • LukeLuke Resident Spam Cleaner DublinPosts: 7,877 Admin
    GBT said:
    Who knows maybe some of you are heterosexual or maybe your not. These things will take generations to clean up 50-150 years maybe of hard effort to clean up the Homophobia. I believe Everyone can see some of these tactics and effects they are having on others. You do not have to believe me, but what we ask is you STOP the homophobic programming especially targeting Young males. No one is asking you to Change we all just ask you stop passing along the Bies to your children for 2-4 generations so we can start to see more Nature behavior these things are interfering with. Even if you do not think these things effect you I am sure most will admit they are created to and do effect others.......
    Heterosexuality does not equal homophobia. I acknowledge that non-heterosexuals have had a less than stellar image portrayed of them in the past few 100 years, something which is only being acknowledged now, but if you start any sort of prejudiced, biased or otherwise target a group of people, even what's seen as a majority (or privileged side) then I'll have to (regrettably) remove this thread. 

    That is not because of your opinions, sexual orientation or whatever, but in the interest of promoting a safe place for EVERYONE on this forum. I'd do the same if someone was telling me that bisexuals were intentially encouraing promiscuity (which I have seen happen). If I misunderstood what you meant by "Who knows maybe some of you are heterosexual or maybe your not. These things will take generations to clean up 50-150 years maybe of hard effort to clean up the Homophobia" then please let me know. I'm willing to accept I might have misinterpreted your intention.

    P.S. I know some people use "homophobia" as a term to refer simply to prejudice against gay people. However, if we're to use the generally understood version of the term, it means hatred or intolerance or homosexuals (and some other subsets of the LGBT+ community)


  • LukeLuke Resident Spam Cleaner DublinPosts: 7,877 Admin
    GBT said:
    Sorry we are just Guys, we really care about sexuality not these gender issues and see much of the effort to paint us all with this pink feminine gay brush as not only counter productive but a clear attempt to keep us looking like outsiders or queer if you wish :) 


    This is a very good point, and one which annoys me. No group of people should be subject to any stereotype. 


  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    f
    by GBT
  • LukeLuke Resident Spam Cleaner DublinPosts: 7,877 Admin
    GBT said:
    Yes all we ask is Help killing homophobia where ever you see it, and to Please not pass these issues along to children. These tactics can be really tricky but normally involve connecting Non Heterosexuality in Males as very Negative, Unattractive, Unwanted, Non-Normal, and many other ways to try to connection negative connotation to these ideas in peoples minds. We should all be smart enough to spot these 'control' tactics.

    Also I ask you stop interfering with the Interaction between males, this is Key we disconnect young males with this No Homo stuff they should have NO Fear or issues with physical contact. This has nothing to do with sexuality nor is it natural for humans to have these types of issues. You can really watch 15-20yo males and see how we are progressing just watching them play and hang out with each other. When you see them hold back or afraid to have any type of prolonged physical contact you know this is because the got the Homo Bug and we need to try harder with the next generation until its Gone 100%.

    This is ALL we ask, I know its hard but its better for your children and the world anyway. All other issues will work themselves out on their own really this is ALL I am asking for
    This seems reasonable. Apologies if I misunderstood earlier.

    There's also the fact that they might not like physical contact though
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    f
    by GBT
  • KGB_the_Russian_SpyKGB_the_Russian_Spy The Actually Rather Divided States of AmericaPosts: 3,668 ✭✭✭
    @Luke
    You said heterosexuality does not equal homophobia, which I definitely agree with, and I also want to make the point that in Will Grayson, Will Grayson, David Levithan's WG is gay, but before he realizes he's gay he uses the word as a derogatory term for things that he's not a fan of.  For example, on page 24 of WG/WG, it says that "every now and then you get a teacher like mrs. grover, who's a sadistic loser. i mean, it can't be easy being a french teacher, because nobody really knows how to speak french anymore. and while she kisses the honor kid's derrieres, with standard kids she resents the fact that we're taking up her time, so she responds by giving us quizzes every day and giving us gay projects like "design your own ride for euro disney.""
    "Fairy tales are more than true, not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten"  ~Neil Gaiman
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,904 ✭✭✭
    GBT said:

    The word Heterosexual was first used in the 19thcentury in response to a piece of Muslim legislation that made same-sex erotic behavior illegal.

    Word origin dates:
    Heterosexuality - 1892
    Homosexuality - 1895

    You know why these words didn't exist until the 19th Century? Because Hetero and Homo are Greek prefixes and Sexus is a Latin suffix. Television also connects a Greek prefix to a Latin suffix.
    Taxonomy generally wasn't that well written about until the 18th century anyway.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    f
    by GBT
  • KGB_the_Russian_SpyKGB_the_Russian_Spy The Actually Rather Divided States of AmericaPosts: 3,668 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    Sure!  That's what we as Nerdfighters stand for, equality, justice, and everyone feeling like they have the freedom to be the person they are. :)

    Oh, and pizza.  We stand for that too.
    by KGB_the_Russian_Spy
    "Fairy tales are more than true, not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten"  ~Neil Gaiman
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2015
    @ GBT Well now I see where you're coming from. The thing is, when you talk about sexuality, you're also necessarily talking about gender. When we say "homosexual" we mean to say that one is attracted to people of one's own gender. So to say that queerness focuses too much on gender and not enough on sexuality doesn't quite make sense. You can't have a definition of sexuality without talking about gender, which is why the queer movement wants to do away with gender politics so as to make it impossible for the subjugation of not only women, intersex people, and others, but also for the LGBT community. 

    Yes, to be queer is to be an outsider. That's kind of the point. I think queerness has huge potential to end oppression and prejudice, but I also understand the pressure and temptation to want to "fit in" and be normalized. What I would say here is that this is pressure to be accepted into the very social system that causes these problems in the first place. Even if homosexuality does eventually become normalized, there will always be another identity for the system to subjugate. Do you see the problem here, or at least what I'm getting at? That we're using these methods of identification at all is what allows for oppression. What I'm arguing for is not "yes, let's allow gay men to be effeminate" but to say, "What is 'effeminate,' and why do we think this is a valid way to describe anyone?'" But, again, I understand where you're coming from and so at the end of the day, we'd have to agree to disagree.
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • LukeLuke Resident Spam Cleaner DublinPosts: 7,877 Admin
    @Luke
    You said heterosexuality does not equal homophobia, which I definitely agree with, and I also want to make the point that in Will Grayson, Will Grayson, David Levithan's WG is gay, but before he realizes he's gay he uses the word as a derogatory term for things that he's not a fan of.  For example, on page 24 of WG/WG, it says that "every now and then you get a teacher like mrs. grover, who's a sadistic loser. i mean, it can't be easy being a french teacher, because nobody really knows how to speak french anymore. and while she kisses the honor kid's derrieres, with standard kids she resents the fact that we're taking up her time, so she responds by giving us quizzes every day and giving us gay projects like "design your own ride for euro disney.""
    Yep, and to an extent we could call that homophobia. I guess we just have to be careful with how we phrase things (until it becomes second nature to us). 

    This video might be sort of relevant to the homophobia discussion:



    For context, Panti is a fairly prominent member of the LGBT+ community here in Ireland, and watching that video was the first time I properly saw that "hey, maybe things aren't so rosy..and maybe some of my friends are experiencing the same thing but jsut don't say anything about it"
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    f
    by GBT
  • GBTGBT Posts: 30
    edited August 2015
    g
    by GBT
Sign In or Register to comment.