The Gaming Den

Maj wrote:Because it is? Part of accepting is enduring without protest or reaction. And when it comes to people who don't believe in the same things you do, you don't want them getting in your face and telling you to accept their beliefs.

The part of that thought that is wrong is the converse of it, that things are not okay if done in front of the person who doesn't like it. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but simply because the viewer doesn't want these people to exist.

I mean seriously, what is actually wrong with the way these people act, other than the fact that it outs them as gay and most people just really don't want to see gay people at all?

There is this persistent idea in American society that gay people are perfectly okay as long as they don't act out. Gay people can be together as long as they have a perfect nuclear family. As long as they act straight, they can live in society. As long as nothing changes, people can be assimilated.


The issue I take is that the hatred of "flaming" gay men is a hatred of their form of personal expression. It is a hatred of the way they choose to act in their lives. They are, of course, harmless, and generally keep to their own social circles-no one is going up to you and ramming a rainbow flag down your throat. Nothing is being forced on anyone, and yet people are still welcome to hate people for no reason at all.

Even if a person is running around blabbering about how fabulous he is, why do you let you hatred of his ridiculous actions extend to anyone who shares his mannerisms?

I'm sure I would hate someone who fit Murtak's description of "Some well-dressed asshole not shutting up, constantly telling me how fabulous he is." Because that person is being an asshole. The problem is when people who are prejudiced are allowed to blame someone's assholishness on, say, his being openly and flamingly gay, rather than on him being an asshole.

In short, it's a way of hating people who are different and then justifying it by pointing to some people who are different and who are also assholes.

I'd say they're annoying rather than I hate them. One its an affectation, homosexuality does not cause you to speak differently. Affectations are just annoying in general. Two they are guys I don't want to go out with, they're using up part of the potential dating pool in a non-attractive way. Sort've like smokers really.

Cielingcat wrote:

Maj wrote:Because it is? Part of accepting is enduring without protest or reaction. And when it comes to people who don't believe in the same things you do, you don't want them getting in your face and telling you to accept their beliefs.

The part of that thought that is wrong is the converse of it, that things are not okay if done in front of the person who doesn't like it. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but simply because the viewer doesn't want these people to exist.

No it is more to the point that you should know better. If you do ANYTHING in front of someone that may offend them then you accept the consequences for your actions. Kicking a puppy will not likely get you favorable looks/reactions from onlookers.

It has to do with out of sight, out of mind.

The issue I take is that the hatred of "flaming" gay men is a hatred of their form of personal expression.

Not many people like arrogant assholes. Nudist don't go walking around in non-nudist places nude. They respect others wants/needs for clothing, and cloth themselves, and keep nudism to their homes, beaches, communities, etc.

In both of these it is really how you show respect for other people.

If you have any attention whore walking into a public library and start yelling to get everyone's attention to just know they are now there, then are they showing respect for the library?

Why not extend this to other places?

All these are example of things ANYONE could do to show a lack of respect for their surroundings and the people in them. There is where the problem lies in the action, be it public nudity, being overly loud and obnoxious just to express yourself, PDAs. Yes not everyone cares for public displays of affection be it male/female or any other combination between them. Nobody just starts fucking on a public park bench in the middle of the day. Nobody just walks into a restaurant and shouts "I have anal leakage/rectum cancer".

It is not that things are done, but more they are overdone that annoys other people and causes the problem. There is no dimmer switch to some peoples actions, and this in turn results in guilt by association.

Take a group of 5 people one a DD. The 4 getting drunk start some bar fight and the 5th tries to stop them, and all 5 get arrested as well as some other bystanders that were not involved, and the rest of those in the fight.

It is the blame them all and get them out of the way and sort it out later way of thinking, and it works.

For the bar fight you want to break it up and sort it out in another place for the safety of others. It works so well there, it happens in all parts of life. Thankfully it is done that way, so that planes are held when someone gets sick to find out if it can be spread to others, or if the passengers can be let off without making other people sick.

It may seems excessive, but it is a tried and true method, so it worked so good it happens to all things.

You will also find gays that cannot stand the showgirl dressups with arms akimbo, and such that is offensive to them. I don't mean crossdresing, but just "going out of your way to look gay, as if gay is some fashion statement rather than what you are"; as it was said to me.

It goes that way for anyone. If you can be you in a way that doesn't bother anyone else, then nobody will bother you about who you are.

I hope that made some sense. Just took some strong cold medicine with codeine in it.

Of course, most people don't realize how many times in the space of a couple minutes they 'out' themselves as heterosexual.

-Crissa

Wyzzard wrote: As for the homophobia itself? Well, I suppose it's just leftover animal nature to be wary of the unknown.

Being afraid of the strange, colourfull men is much like being afraid of clowns, it's just peoples primal fear going off when they see something they aren't used to; that's perfectly normal animal behavior.
Some people are just too retarded to realize on an intellectual level that the man in the tight pants obviously isn't packing a gun.

Coulrophobiais actually based on the fear that you can't read the clown's real emotions. This is because the face paint distorts the face's features, and instead places giant happy smiles, or sad pouts.

Up until I read up about why people are scared shitless of clowns, I actually didn't give one damn about them or not.

Now that I understand why people fear clowns; I actually am a lot more suspicious and actually uncomfortable around them. I also tend to ignore their face paint and focus on their eyes and lips, since there's really no other way to see how they are really acting.

Seriously, I'm actually more afraid of clowns after learning why people are afraid of them, than I was beforehand.

Which says something about fears. Confronting someone else's fears can sometimes give you those same fears.

---

Most homophobia is said to stem from the fact that once you're part of the gay crowd, you've effectively removed yourself from the breeding pool.

Similar things happen in primates; if one male rapes an other, then the raped male is usually completely removed from the breeding pool. This fear of being removed from the breeding pool is part of a lot of latent homophobia.

The other part is that most homophobes are not in the closet; they're in a cave beyond the closet.

Apparently no matter how much you say that you hate the gays, your pee-pee won't lie, and gets all hot and bothered when you are shown images of hot beefcakes.

Seriously, some research lab was attaching sensors to guys groins, then showing them erotic images of men; then recording who got erections to the images of homo eroticism. The conclusion was that homophobes tend to be in the closet gays.

So, it's more of a deep-rooted subconscious fear that is immediately flung in their face, so they fucking panic, and get angry b/c they're stupid and don't have the wisdom to realize what is going on.

I think that taking those two pieces of info into account might help in dealing with homophobia. There are deep-seated reasons for it, and understanding those reasons is the only way that it can be combated.

---

Crissa, that is very true.

I'll be honest though, I don't really do stuff like that in my conversations, mostly b/c I feel that it's either crass, crude, or just what shouldn't be mentioned in conversation. The number of people who know my preference are my closest friends, and even then, they have little to no proof one way or the other. I'm probably the only one in most of my social groups that bothers trying to dress well when in public. I also don't tell most people a lot about myself.


On the topic of flamboyantly annoying heterosexuals, yes, they exist, and yes, people do make fun of them. Usually their orange-faced overly tanned faces, exaggerated gestures and obviously steroid-using bodies make them a stereotype that many people dislike, and enjoy ridiculing.

Judging__Eagle wrote: Coulrophobiais actually based on the fear that you can't read the clown's real emotions. This is because the face paint distorts the face's features, and instead places giant happy smiles, or sad pouts.

I'm guessing you've never done any sort of theater where you got to work with clowns. By and large, people who chose to do that sort of performance are deeply disturbed individuals, and I encourage you all to be wary of them.

Except for This guy He's totally cool backstage and only terrifying when he's in character.

Of course, most people don't realize how many times in the space of a couple minutes they 'out' themselves as heterosexual.

Fair enough, lemme clarify my earlier point:

Name first, then orientation. That is cool.
Orientation before name, I still consider that rude.
And I don't care what your orientation is - I know it ISN'T the very first thing I want to know about you.

Examples:
"Hi, I'm Brian, and my boyfriend Eric told me I should talk to you about blah blah blah" = cool.

"Hi, I'm TOTALLY STRAIGHT, so don't hit on me, I'm just here with friends. My name's Tom" = rude, and generally inappropriate.

Josh_Kablack wrote:

Judging__Eagle wrote: Coulrophobiais actually based on the fear that you can't read the clown's real emotions. This is because the face paint distorts the face's features, and instead places giant happy smiles, or sad pouts.

I'm guessing you've never done any sort of theater where you got to work with clowns. By and large, people who chose to do that sort of performance are deeply disturbed individuals, and I encourage you all to be wary of them.

Except for This guy He's totally cool backstage and only terrifying when he's in character.

I dunno whether to laugh or cry.....fffffffff, that's what clowns do. FFFFFFFFFFFF.

Josh_Kablack wrote:However I consider the sort of "flaming" where I can tell someone is gay by the second syllable of their "Hel-lo" to be exceedingly rude in most circumstances.

'Rude' is the best word for it, definitely.

Cielingcat wrote:The part of that thought that is wrong is the converse of it, that things are not okay if done in front of the person who doesn't like it. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but simply because the viewer doesn't want these people to exist.

Sorry. I think that the definition of acceptance that I'm talking about covers a much wider spectrum than yours does because I seriously don't want gay people flamingly in my face, but it's totally OK for them to exist.

Cielingcat wrote:Even if a person is running around blabbering about how fabulous he is, why do you let you hatred of his ridiculous actions extend to anyone who shares his mannerisms?

Personally, I don't. I don't even hate the person. It was of the utmost importance to my mother that her children learn the "hate the behavior, not the person" lesson. You hate it when the dog eats your slippers/baby climbs on your desk/spouse forgets to make dinner, but you don't hate the dog/baby/spouse.

Cielingcat wrote:The issue I take is that the hatred of "flaming" gay men is a hatred of their form of personal expression. It is a hatred of the way they choose to act in their lives.

In my case, it's an in your face thing. I watch a lot of Top Chef, and there was a season a while back where I got really frustrated with a couple of the people because it seemed like they spent more time talking about their sexuality than they did about the food. It's a cooking show, peeps - shut up and cook.

And really, I think that's the core of the issue. When the only thing that you can tell about a person is that they're gay (or straight, or male, or a gamer, or a CEO...), it sucks. People are supposed to be three-dimensional. Stop telling me you're gay and start telling me that you're interested in running a business, have a puppy, like reading biographies, enjoy the rain, whatever... Just be a real person.

Cielingcat wrote:I'm sure I would hate someone who fit Murtak's description of "Some well-dressed asshole not shutting up, constantly telling me how fabulous he is." Because that person is being an asshole. The problem is when people who are prejudiced are allowed to blame someone's assholishness on, say, his being openly and flamingly gay, rather than on him being an asshole.

The problem is that frequently people can legitimately claim they don't like someone because that person is being an asshole, but if there's an obvious minority status available, that gets pinned as the "real" reason, the hater becomes a closet bigot.

Josh wrote:Fair enough, lemme clarify my earlier point:

Name first, then orientation. That is cool.
Orientation before name, I still consider that rude.
And I don't care what your orientation is - I know it ISN'T the very first thing I want to know about you.

Examples:
"Hi, I'm Brian, and my boyfriend Eric told me I should talk to you about blah blah blah" = cool.

"Hi, I'm TOTALLY STRAIGHT, so don't hit on me, I'm just here with friends. My name's Tom" = rude, and generally inappropriate.

Exactly.

My point was that things which are considered completely normal for heterosexuals is considered 'rude' if done by homosexuals.

Talk about your spouse, your children, refer to your own gender, hold hands or flirt with your date... All these things are stuff which will happen without any sort of actual introduction.

It's hardly fair if gay people can't talk about the partner but het people get to do so constantly.

It's even in the title of people's formal names: Mrs Jones.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:It's even in the title of people's formal names: Mrs Jones.

So if you and your partner got married, you wouldn't be a Mrs.?

I'm with you there, Crissa.

No one should need to hide their emotional attachments or deny their love from society.

But there's a difference between being out and being in-your-face.

It's even in the title of people's formal names: Mrs Jones.

Which is why it's a good thing "Ms." has become acceptable over the last 50 years.

Judging__Eagle wrote:Seriously, some research lab was attaching sensors to guys groins, then showing them erotic images of men; then recording who got erections to the images of homo eroticism. The conclusion was that homophobes tend to be in the closet gays.

That sounds like a really bad Catholic seminary joke I heard a year or so ago.

Crissa wrote:Talk about your spouse, your children, refer to your own gender, hold hands or flirt with your date... All these things are stuff which will happen without any sort of actual introduction.

It's hardly fair if gay people can't talk about the partner but het people get to do so constantly.

First and foremost, it should be as natural for a gay person to talk about his SO as it should be for a straight person to talk about their SO. (Assuming this is in the ordinary course of conversation sort of way.)

Judging__Eagle wrote:Seriously, some research lab was attaching sensors to guys groins, then showing them erotic images of men; then recording who got erections to the images of homo eroticism. The conclusion was that homophobes tend to be in the closet gays.

Apparently further studies (and examination of the original study) suggest it's not actually true that homophobes are so far in the closet they're in Narnia. Which doesn't explain why so many homophobic conservative politicians are caught soliciting gay sex in restrooms.

Crissa wrote:My point was that things which are considered completely normal for heterosexuals is considered 'rude' if done by homosexuals.

Talk about your spouse, your children, refer to your own gender, hold hands or flirt with your date... All these things are stuff which will happen without any sort of actual introduction.

It's hardly fair if gay people can't talk about the partner but het people get to do so constantly.

It's even in the title of people's formal names: Mrs Jones.

-Crissa

Not everyone feels that way. Some of us don't care for PDAs at all, not matter who it is. Get a room.

Also not everyone wants to hear about your ugly ass kids. Yes all children are butt ugly brats. There is nothing cute about someone looking like Sissey Spacek from Carrie, and then end up looking like a deformed cabbage patch/garbage pail kid for the next 10 years.

Also not everyone is interested in your latest conquest, be it spouse or just a one night stand.

Again, get a room. Not everyone likes soap operas. The good ones (Knots Landing, Dallas, Falcon's Crest, Dynasty) went of the air ages ago. Now all you have is the Old and the Forresters, All of the Octomom's Children, and other crap like that.

So not everyone cares to see any of that soft core porn from anyone in public.

Crissa wrote:My point was that things which are considered completely normal for heterosexuals is considered 'rude' if done by homosexuals.

Talk about your spouse, your children, refer to your own gender, hold hands or flirt with your date... All these things are stuff which will happen without any sort of actual introduction.

It's hardly fair if gay people can't talk about the partner but het people get to do so constantly.

As long as it's not too excessive (and this applies for both gay and straight people), I don't care about stuff like this. But jus tlike parents who can't carry on a conversation if it doesn't involve how wonderful their own children are, there is a line.

Like I said before - it's the one dimensional thing. People who are their job/pet/children/sexuality/gender/hobby aren't people - they're paper cutouts of people, and no one I want to be around at all.

Not legally, no. The state had to fight a stupid lawsuit and lose it then the state legislature had to step in to make the DMV allow people who aren't women in a heterosexual marriage change their salutation or surname without court interference.

The Prop 8 screwed up the state on that so it's not entirely clear if I still can get my name changed since the DMV is such a slouch at actually following the law (they seem to make their own shit up and be terribly retrogressive).

Yeah, flame, hanging, or one-sided people are annoying.

...But we should know that's not what homophobes are complaining about. They want to stop any and all impositions of only specific sexualities upon their world.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Yeah, flame, hanging, or one-sided people are annoying.

...But we should know that's not what homophobes are complaining about. They want to stop any and all impositions of only specific sexualities upon their world.

Yep. "Well there are Black/Inidan/Jewish/Muslim/Women people I do find annoying/hate" is not normally considered a reasonable response to "Why are people so damn' racist/sexist/'nationalist'/otherwise bigoted?". It shouldn't be in this case either.

Cielingcat wrote:But why is this okay?

It's not.

But it is. People everywhere I go get away with hating people who "flaunt" their gayness by acting differently and they get away with it. No one calls them on it, no one says anything about-no one does anything.

Hating people is allowed. Hatred is your right. You can hate anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Lots of people hate me, and no one "calls them on it" because it's totally their right to hate me if that's what they want to do.

You can totally hate someone to the point where you wouldn't go out to dinner with them or invite them to your home. That's allowed. But if you hate someone to the point where you literally attack them or attempt to intimidate them out of society, that's where you cross the line between exercising your rights and violating theirs.

-Username17

I don't hate people, I hate the mannerisms. It is equally unpleasant for me to see men, both gay and straight, and women engaged in "girly" behaviour. The same with sagging pants: I haven't seen a black person dressed that way, ever, so there's no way one could connect my dislike of this fashion style to racism.

This prejudice is self-sustaining: heterosexuals assume the annoyingly flamboyant people to be gay (even though they usually aren't) and likeable people to be heterosexual -- because there's nothing screaming "Lol look at me I'm gay!!!1!" about them. Megan Rose Gedris showed that perfectly: Page 1 Page 2

The reason I'm still in the closet is because if I ever come out, people will be like, "Oh, like those t.A.T.u. whores?" Nevermind those chicks aren't even lesbian. I'm very much against gay parades. I don't want to be associated with this sort of culture, as my sister, who just likes wearing black, hates being associated with emos.

"Gay culture" is a myth. There's nothing creative about being gay per se, and the only reason for gay communities to exist is to band together against common problems.

Also, gays aren't free of prejudice against themselves: Stormfront pales in comparison to the Russian lesbian community. Women are seriously shoehorned into gender roles: "females" aren't supposed to wear pants or kiss "males", and "males" aren't supposed to wear skirts or use make-up. "Females" should wear a matching pair of earrings, "males" a crazy number, unevenly distributed between ears, or none at all. And don't you dare to deviate from the norm, perverts. WTF?

Now, a question. At my dad's office, there's a woman who's never promoted because she has a plainly visible heart tattoo on her plainly visible ass. The bosses think it's not appropriate for her to attend business meeting with clients because she'll ruin the organization's image otherwise. If I were to peek out of the closet, I'd never be promoted for the very same reason (ruining the firm's image, not a bare ass). So where's that line?

Crissa wrote:Not legally, no. The state had to fight a stupid lawsuit and lose it then the state legislature had to step in to make the DMV allow people who aren't women in a heterosexual marriage change their salutation or surname without court interference.

Really? I didn't know that you couldn't just call yourself a Mrs. I mean, who actually keeps track of that stuff?

Crissa wrote:The Prop 8 screwed up the state on that so it's not entirely clear if I still can get my name changed since the DMV is such a slouch at actually following the law (they seem to make their own shit up and be terribly retrogressive).

In slightly related news, we actually passed Referendum 71. I was afraid to mention it until the vote was officially certified on the 24th. I'm not exactly sure what the next level of protest and hoops is, though.