Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

[Belegon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

P.S. Also what is up with the conotation that if one is a homophobe, he is thus manly. Isn't someone who is uncomfortable around gays actually revealing a complete lack of confidence in his own sexuality?

In my opinion, yes. At least to a point. At the very least he is revealing himself as being uncomfortable with possible public discourse about the nature of his sexual orientation.

The girl I took to my senior prom was very surprised the first time I showed interest in her because a potential rival for her affections had told her I was gay. Actually, I was just open and non-judging about others and did not date girls from my sister school. So since I wasn't dating a girl as far as he knew and I was not homophobic, ergo I was gay. Plus it served his interests if she thought I was. Such was life at an all boy catholic high school in 1983.

I would find it interesting why none of the girls at the all girl school I had a morning class at thought it was so, but then that would not have helped him "win the girl". I guess.

Hmmm, seems to my memory, I got the girl he wanted after all...so she was apparently smarter and more observent than he was. Big surprise.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by CharleyH
yet I still wonder if those like Joe would rent it

Speaking as one of those people like Joe, it would all depend on just how hot she was. I mean, I might have to slap some porn of two guys fucking like jackrabbits for a total stone fox; I might have to point the gothopotamus in the direction of the adult store by herself. It all depends.

P.S. Also what is up with the conotation that if one is a homophobe, he is thus manly. Isn't someone who is uncomfortable around gays actually revealing a complete lack of confidence in his own sexuality?

Not necessarily, no. For instance, they could just really hate gay people.

It is an unfortunate (and irrational) misconception that people who don't feel comfortable around homosexual things and people (even to extremes) aren't confident about their own sexuality.

 

[Guest]

Re. the irony of a homophobic male feeling more manly, like any other prejudice it is based on an ignorant fear. In our times there is still a majority that believes homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, so homophobia makes sense.

However, the ancient Greeks did not see homosexuality as unnatural or immoral and believed a homosexual man was exceptionally masculine, the epitome of masculinity. That made sense given that they believed women were inferior and not fully human, i.e., a man who only loved women was not as masculine as a man who only loved men.

It's all a cultural construct with religion and politics forming the foundation, and obviously a solid one given what Charley has pointed out here and a few posters have revealed. I must say I am surprized and disappointed.

Perdita

 

[minsue]

Completely off topic, but I love your new AV, 'Dita.

OK, back to the homophobia...

 

[Belegon]

Not necessarily, no. For instance, they could just really hate gay people.

It is an unfortunate (and irrational) misconception that people who don't feel comfortable around homosexual things and people (even to extremes) aren't confident about their own sexuality.

Uh, Joe, I think the word used was "Homophobic". At least to me, that is stronger than just "isn't comfortable". The conotation to me is violently anti-gay and fearful of the reality and concept. Certainly, not all people with these behaviors are secretly hiding a gay tendancy. However, the behaviors and thought processes I have observed tend to support the more general view here.

Oh, and the obvious question. "just really hate gay people"

Umm, why?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
Uh, Joe, I think the word used was "Homophobic". At least to me, that is stronger than just "isn't comfortable". The conotation to me is violently anti-gay and fearful of the reality and concept. Certainly, not all people with these behaviors are secretly hiding a gay tendancy. However, the behaviors and thought processes I have observed tend to support the more general view here.

Well, I accounted for that--I should think--when I said "(even to extremes)". Regardless, it is not necessarily true that they're "lacking confidence about their sexuality" even in those cases (as stated).

Oh, and the obvious question. "just really hate gay people"

Umm, why?

Dunno. I'm sure they've got their reasons.

 

[Belegon]

OK, I think the time has come to be more direct. Joe, how many men do you know who are violently anti-gay? When is the last time you discussed their beliefs as to why with them?

I grew up in a VERY diverse city. Yet even here I ran into that attitude, just as I ran into prejudice against blacks, latinos and asians. The major difference is that those of different races were never thought of as being contagious.

Now, I am a little older than you and some things have changed greatly in the last 10-15 years. The general knowledge among non-homosexuals of what really constitutes homosexuality (in both genders) is remarkably greater than it was in my high school or even college years. "Will and Grace" could never have been on even cable in 1980. Fer Chris' Sake, there was argument in the late 70's about whether or not the Village People were straight. With the assumption that they WERE! Since the other side was all but unthinkable.

Yet there are still people out there who are afraid that the gay community has an agenda to turn everyone gay. They say things like, "If some fuckin' faggot was to come on to me I'd fuckin' kill em" AND THEY MEAN IT! Many of these people honestly believe that if they hang out with gay people they will become gay. And they FEAR that possibility.

If they think that is possible they I feel that they are not confident in their own sexuality. That is what I am referring to...

And hatred does not happen without a reason. And those reasons would be relevant to the original issue here, which is the question of why MF and FF seem to be accepted sexual relationships for writing and flirting in the AH and MM is not.

Joe, you are sounding like the person you look like, and unless you want to be referred to as "Jason" hereafter, use the intelligence you seem to possess. Of course the use of terms like "stone fox" and "gothopotomus" don't exactly show maturity either. It is possible to be strongly male and heterosexual without being a macho shithead.

Anybody who wants to understand the "Jason" comment, read Wingman and you will understand. Those of you who have may be on the floor laughing, but I swear that I am absolutely serious. Joe's AV looks enough like Jason that I did a double take the first time he posted.

 

[doormouse]

I'm gay I'm gay I'm gay...

Oh, hang on we already worked I wasn't

I'm nay I'm nay I'm nay

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
OK, I think the time has come to be more direct. Joe, how many men do you know who are violently anti-gay? When is the last time you discussed their beliefs as to why with them?

Given the general discussion-based habits of my classes, I'd say I talk with people about beliefs ranging from absurd to violent to productive very often on a wide range of subjects. Many of my students are from the South--opinions on some matters can get pretty dramatic. Homosexuality has been one, previously (and a few times). However, I don't really see what that's supposed to prove. It has nothing to do with my point.

Yet there are still people out there who are afraid that the gay community has an agenda to turn everyone gay.

And I haven't yet said that there weren't, only that it is a misconception that people who are anti-gay (we'll use that term), even violently so, are somehow insecure about their own sexuality. It isn't a necessary truth and shouldn't be presented as one. It was presented as though one, I said "that isn't necessarily true, its a misconception".

If I'm incorrect, please show me (I rather don't think I, technically, am).

Many of these people honestly believe that if they hang out with gay people they will become gay. And they FEAR that possibility.

Which is perfectly fine, and even possibly accurate (though how we are to make statements about the actual cognitions of other people is beyond me; I have never understood how people claim that kind of knowledge). My point wasn't that there weren't some or even many, just that the notion that "because you are homophobic, you are insecure about your own sexuality" is not necessarily true--a misconception... essentially, a concept that is misguided.

Joe, you are sounding like the person you look like, and unless you want to be referred to as "Jason" hereafter, use the intelligence you seem to possess.

Huh? First of all, while I'm sure it may be very meaningful to you and potentially meaningful to others... you say "Jason", I think "Vorhees". Second, I am quite using my intelligence--how would I not be?

Of course the use of terms like "stone fox" and "gothopotomus" don't exactly show maturity either. It is possible to be strongly male and heterosexual without being a macho shithead.

It is also possible to be strongly male and heterosexual while using those terms... and possible to do so without being a "macho shithead"... and possible that I accomplished just that. If you want to start a conversation about what is and isn't "possible", we're going to be here a very long time. I rather suggest we just not open that door (and leave the "personal" category entirely out of the equation, for now, out of politeness).

 

[Belegon]

It has nothing to do with my point.

Joe, what is your point then? State it clearly please. Say, "My point is..." Unless of course it is that...

only that it is a misconception that people who are anti-gay (we'll use that term), even violently so, are somehow insecure about their own sexuality.

The point is that straight males who commonly make active homophobic statements are uncomfortable having their own orientation questioned. Not that they are closet homosexuals. Is this true for every straight male who professes to be anti-gay? Of course not. We were talking in generalities to begin with, remember? Why, IN GENERAL, do the straight males in the AH not flirt or write the way many straight females do.

Now, in general, my experience shows that a great majority of straight males who are actively anti-gay become very upset if they are called gay. Gay males rarely become upset about being called straight. Generally speaking. Unless it is done so as an insult by another gay male. We are not talking about being called "a Faggot". We are talking about, "So Bob, have you ever been attracted to a guy?" Bob responds, "No, and I'll kick the ass of anyone who says I have." If Thom asks Carson, "Have you ever been attracted to a women?", I think that type of response is far less likely.

It isn't a necessary truth and shouldn't be presented as one. It was presented as though one, I said "that isn't necessarily true, its a misconception". If I'm incorrect, please show me (I rather don't think I, technically, am).

You are incorrect in saying that it was presented as a "necessary truth". I just reread the thread. No person states that it is a truth or fact that all men who are uncomfortable around gay men are insecure about their sexuality. The closest is saying that "In my opinion, yes. At least to a point. At the very least he is revealing himself as being uncomfortable with possible public discourse about the nature of his sexual orientation." Which I said and stand by. In general, this seems to be true in the majority of cases.

My point wasn't that there weren't some or even many, just that the notion that "because you are homophobic, you are insecure about your own sexuality" is not necessarily true--a misconception... essentially, a concept that is misguided.

Oh, here is your point! Ok, I think we have addressed that...

Huh? First of all, while I'm sure it may be very meaningful to you and potentially meaningful to others... you say "Jason", I think "Vorhees".

Um, Joe? last part of my post? Anybody who wants to understand the "Jason" comment, read Wingman and you will understand. Those of you who have may be on the floor laughing, but I swear that I am absolutely serious. Joe's AV looks enough like Jason that I did a double take the first time he posted. I don't have the space to make the point here. I would need to tell the whole story. If I compare myself to Sisyphus in continuing this discourse with you, do you need me to tell you all about Greek Mythology to satisfy your need to understand the analogy?

It is also possible to be strongly male and heterosexual while using those terms... and possible to do so without being a "macho shithead"... and possible that I accomplished just that.

Possible, yes. But using those terms in direct relation to the attractiveness of a potential sexual partner and whether or not you would be willing to have your sexual orientation questioned by performing the public act of renting a gay porn, based solely upon which of the descriptions best described the potential partner? Ok, I guess this is a matter of opinion. Perhaps it is only being uncouth and impolite. Perhaps you don't feel that you are playing into any stereotypes by using this method of explaining why you would or would not rent the video. Perhaps you were just making a rude joke. Perhaps you think this was funny. Well, opinions are, by definition, neither correct nor incorrect. In my opinion, you sounded like a macho shithead.

(and leave the "personal" category entirely out of the equation, for now, out of politeness).

Um, I never said, "Joe, you are a macho shithead." Although you apparently perceived that I did. I did say "Of course the use of terms like "stone fox" and "gothopotomus" don't exactly show maturity either." Actually, there are only two statements I made that were direct comments about you.
1) You seem to possess intelligence. If this comment offends you I will gladly retract it.
2) That you bear a physical resemblance to a person that I knew in college. A person, by the way, that I refer to as being considered very attractive by the opposite sex, and I guess by me, since I recognized the attractiveness in the first place. If this comment offends you, well, I guess I will just have to live with it.

By the way, Joe, have you ever been attracted to a man?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If I compare myself to Sisyphus in continuing this discourse with you, do you need me to tell you all about Greek Mythology to satisfy your need to understand the analogy?

I kiss you while Joe's southern classmates scream in horror.

 

[Guest]

I kiss you while Joe's southern classmates scream in horror.

Wow, Luc made me laugh out loud. Ooh.

Perdita


p.s. to Joe: the 'generalities' Bel (and perhaps others) have mentioned, and with which I agree, are very well documented. I'm thinking you haven't done much gender-studies reading, but the "truth" about homophobia is not difficult to research.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
Joe, what is your point then?

Its been stated clearly several times. If you look at my initial post to this topic (the response to LC's question), I quite entirely clearly state my thesis, as it were. It has been repeated over and over, since.

The point is that straight males who commonly make active homophobic statements are

This is not necessarily true.

Is this true for every straight male who professes to be anti-gay? Of course not. We were talking in generalities to begin with, remember?

"Generalities" have to be substantiated like any other statement. To make a generalization that isn't false or presumptuous, one has to have direct proof of the majority. Is it true for every straight male who professes to be anti-gay? No, not necessarily. Is it "true in general"? Um... no. Not necessarily. "In general" is not a band-aid for statements that are beyond fact. "Well I know a ton of anti-gay people" isnt proof--its anecdotal and suspect. We actually have the ability to make very few fair generalizations about the world.

You are incorrect in saying that it was presented as a "necessary truth". I just reread the thread.

I'll clarify. LC's PS question was one that affirmed itself. Which is fine, questions can do that. As such, it presented a view by which it was the case that "All S are P"... which was not necessarily true.

The closest is saying that "In my opinion, yes. At least to a point. At the very least he is revealing himself as being uncomfortable with possible public discourse about the nature of his sexual orientation." Which I said and stand by. In general, this seems to be true in the majority of cases.

Which is not necessarily the case, either. The person may not be revealing a discomfort with public discourse on his own sexuality at all. He may simply really hate gay people/acts. Again, while you may have direct experience with a subset of the population... "in general", the conclusion cannot be drawn as its presuming a lot about the cognitions of other people (and, let's face it, a lot of other people).

Um, Joe? last part of my post? Anybody who wants to understand the "Jason" comment, read Wingman and you will understand.

Such was my point. It may have reference for you, and it may have reference for some other people... but even by saying "go read my story over here to understand this thing I'm talking about", it was sort of just left field. The referent, I think, would have made a ton more sense had it been a more visible or popular notion/character/person that didn't have to be researched. That's all I'd meant.

If I compare myself to Sisyphus in continuing this discourse with you, do you need me to tell you all about Greek Mythology to satisfy your need to understand the analogy?

About Sisyphus? No, why? Do you need to tell me to satisfy your need to understand it?

But using those terms in direct relation to the attractiveness of a potential sexual partner and whether or not you would be willing to have your sexual orientation questioned by performing the public act of renting a gay porn, based solely upon which of the descriptions best described the potential partner?

See, you're assuming the cognitions of others, again... I never said anything about it questioning my orientation by doing so. If I did, I'd be delighted for you to point that out for me.

Ok, I guess this is a matter of opinion. Perhaps it is only being uncouth and impolite.

Agreed.

Actually, there are only two statements I made that were direct comments about you.
1) You seem to possess intelligence. If this comment offends you I will gladly retract it.

Actually the sentence was "Joe...use the intelligence you seem to possess". As I was using it already, I do take some offence to the implication that I wasn't doing so at the time. If you didn't intend to offend, then just take this as a helpful advice on what some people do take offense to so you don't accidentally do it in the future.

2) That you bear a physical resemblance to a person that I knew in college. A person, by the way, that I refer to as being considered very attractive by the opposite sex, and I guess by me, since I recognized the attractiveness in the first place. If this comment offends you, well, I guess I will just have to live with it.

So, your comment of "unless you want to start being called 'Jason'" was actually meaning "unless you want to be referred to as a very attractive person"? How is that a conditional that means anything? Unless I want to be referred to as though a guy who is "very attractive by the opposite sex", I'll start using the "intelligence [that I] seem to possess"?

See, maybe you meant that. I don't see how that is a consequent that makes any sense, but people don't have to make sense I don't guess.

It seems like this "Jason" person was not wrought with all the nobles qualities and to be referred to as "Jason" in your mind was a bad thing... so, making the comparison would be somewhat offensive to me. That's what it seemed like. If that wasn't the case, I'd love to hear how the consequent thingy above makes any sense.

By the way, Joe, have you ever been attracted to a man?

Nope.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
p.s. to Joe: the 'generalities' Bel (and perhaps others) have mentioned, and with which I agree, are very well documented. I'm thinking you haven't done much gender-studies reading, but the "truth" about homophobia is not difficult to research.

Took a few courses in it. There are a lot of theories as to homophobia. Several are rooted in things like psychology (many, many are not even based in research). Some of those rooted in psychology play well with psychodynamic theories and point toward an inner revulsion of homosexual urges--that's true. Clinically, however, Psychology acknowledges that theories like that aren't exactly science... they're more like prose. They explain, but their referrents and correspondance to the real world aren't well rooted in anything but theory and anecdotal evidence (which, if we open the door to anecdotal evidence, we accept the first-hand account of everyone who denies the theory).

Much preferred, for me, than "Gender Studies" was "Philosophy of the Women's Movement". Much cleaner. Less "this is how the world magically works because I theorize it does", more "this is how it must be done by logic and practicality... refute me, bitch". Oh, those women philosophers.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Good morning, McKenna,

Well, straight men, more than women not only participate in homoerotic watching of sports such as football (most obviously, come on, men bent over, taking the ball between the legs, patting eachothers asses ) but more men, straight men, participate in ventures such as circle jerks, so you would THINK that they would be very comfortable with their sexuality.

Nonetheless, you raise an interesting point. Yes - how often men look at you like you are insane when you say, 'I like gay porn', and yet their watching lesbian porn is not considered in any way odd. I wonder, perhaps this is because they do not want to see a woman desire sexually to have two men, or perhaps it's a short fall in being able to see themselves in a scenario with other men? I have no idea. It's worth mentioning it though - one never knows when a guy will want to answer

I think it goes back to theidea of porn being primarily for men. Men like it and most women don't. Those who do are 'rare' (or so they think) and maybe it's kinda cool if you got a girl who likes porn. If she likes lesbian porn, so much the better- maybe you can talk her into that fantasy of yours... Then again, maybe she just pretends to like it, for you (cuz she's such a great girl!) she couldn't possilby *really* like it could she- girls are just so much more *pure* than guys. Now, if she likes gay male porn, that must mean she really likes it for herself!! Her interests don't revolve around yours after all! She's not just a pliable girl who could be talked into going along with your dirty fantasies! She has dirty fantasies of her own!!! Oh the horrors!

And as sexist as this is going to make *me* sound, there are still plenty of men who conciously or subcounsiously think that 1) the world revolves around them and there desires (doesn't it though?) 2) there are 'good girls' and 'bad girls' and 3) women are here to cater to their needs and pleasures, not to have desires dreams or goals of their own. ANd they are always going to be shocked that we do.

Plus the fact that they are so disgusted or fearful of gay male porn that they just can't see how *anyone* would like it. And of course how they've always been tought that they have to be a *man's man* to get the girl, and here's the girl drooling over a couple of fags. It just doesn't make sense.


Not that your average heterosexual male consiously thinks threw any of these reasons before looking at you like your a three headed alien

 

[sweetnpetite]

Not necessarily, no. For instance, they could just really hate gay people.

It is an unfortunate (and irrational) misconception that people who don't feel comfortable around homosexual things and people (even to extremes) aren't confident about their own sexuality. [/B]

You're in denial.

There's always a deeper reason for hatred. (especially unreasonable hatred) And it's usually fear.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
You're in denial.

No, I'm rather not. That's sort of a hapazard diagnosis, no?

There's always a deeper reason for hatred. And it's usually fear.

There are some reasons for hatred that don't necessarily come from fear. Honestyly? Hate can be a sole motivating factor. So can Malice. Whether its "usually fear" or "sometimes fear" or "occasionally fear" or "83 percent of the time fear" is something we can't really substantiate without having direct access to the cognitions of most people on the planet.

 

[sweetnpetite]

No, I'm rather not. That's sort of a hapazard diagnosis, no?



That's pretty much what I expected you to say.



There are some reasons for hatred that don't necessarily come from fear. Honestyly? Hate can be a sole motivating factor. So can Malice. Whether its "usually fear" or "sometimes fear" or "occasionally fear" or "83 percent of the time fear" is something we can't really substantiate without having direct access to the cognitions of most people on the planet.

Stick with the logic, and leave the phycholgy to me

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Stick with the logic, and leave the phycholgy to me

I'm a bit of a clinical psychology superfreak. Hard for me to put that bag down.

 

[sweetnpetite]

hmm.. I'm reading threw this thread, and it's got me wondering if that has anything to do with the reason why lots of guys don't like Interview with a Vampire, or the books in that series.

I don't think it's primarily a *gay* book, but it does have a lot of homoeroticism. Maybe your average he-man can't seperate that from the books other elements?

I do know one guy who likes it, but he has no qualms about flirting with other guys. coincidence?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm a bit of a clinical psychology superfreak. Hard for me to put that bag down.

Ah but you could never embrace Jung. (pun intended)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
hmm.. I'm reading threw this thread, and it's got me wondering if that has anything to do with the reason why lots of guys don't like Interview with a Vampire, or the books in that series.

I don't think it's primarily a *gay* book, but it does have a lot of homoeroticism. Maybe your average he-man can't seperate that from the books other elements?

I do know one guy who likes it, but he has no qualms about flirting with other guys. coincidence?

Didn't like the movie all that much... so people I knew started telling me "Oh, you /have/ to read the book... the book is the new shit. Its... wow... fuck, its the book". So I read the book. Didn't really care for it, either.

So they say "Oh, well, its just the bees knees... you have to read OTHER stuff to really get a sense of the scope of the blah, blah, blah". So I start in on some other A.R. stuff.

Got bored.

I think the severly overdramatic manlove got me moreso than there being any manlove.

 

[Guest]

Joe, I think I've just figured out why I resist discussion with you (and it has bothered me). I would never have guessed you studied gender or feminist thinking. When you post you are so narrowly focused on your argument nothing particularly human (e.g., sincerity, common regard) comes through. It makes me feel as if you're a thinking machine (in the worst way).

I only say this in case you're not aware of it, and care. If it's how you are, whether you choose to be so or cannot help it, fine; but I wanted you to know why I'll be avoiding any serious discussion with you.

On the other hand, Cantdog and Gauche are a joy to read. I hope you know I am not speaking to the right or wrong of any point or idea, 'merely' the messengers.

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Joe, I think I've just figured out why I resist discussion with you (and it has bothered me). I would never have guessed you studied gender or feminist thinking. When you post you are so narrowly focused on your argument nothing particularly human (e.g., sincerity, common regard) comes through. It makes me feel as if you're a thinking machine (in the worst way).

I only say this in case you're not aware of it, and care. If it's how you are, whether you choose to be so or cannot help it, fine; but I wanted you to know why I'll be avoiding any serious discussion with you.

On the other hand, Cantdog and Gauche are a joy to read. I hope you know I am not speaking to the right or wrong of any point or idea, 'merely' the messengers.

Perdita

I should hope you'd know me well enough to know that I wouldn't take that the wrong way at all. I am a lot more "human", I think, than I come across--much agreed.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Joe, I think I've just figured out why I resist discussion with you (and it has bothered me). I would never have guessed you studied gender or feminist thinking. When you post you are so narrowly focused on your argument nothing particularly human (e.g., sincerity, common regard) comes through. It makes me feel as if you're a thinking machine (in the worst way).


Perdita

This is the same impression I get. I wish I had your resolve to just 'stay out of it.'