Who is Queer?
- Thread starter Never
- Start date
John Doe
Justified Snob
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 54,121
sexy-girl said:stuponfucious will never back down from a point or debate ... even after he realizes you're agreeing with him
Never said:
Netzach said:
Okay, now I'm confused. But you people do that too me anyway. I'm just saddened by the fact that I couldn't possibly have sex with any of the three of you.
H piltdown
Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 65
I don't think that special interest groups adopting a name that once held negative conotations in an effort to steer public opinion is a bad idea. I think the word 'queer' can be very effective in describing a group with similar political goals. In this way, the word is used to label a group with a diverse membership, but similar interests, like MADD or even Republican.
Perhaps, some may think a different word or an acronym may have been better, but I have no problem standing under the 'queer flag' in the struggle for equality and tolerance. So, for me, the term 'queer' used in this way is purely political and open to anyone who chooses to stand up for the rights of ALL people whose CONSENSUAL sexual interests are veiwed as deviant or undesirable by those that seek to impose their puritanical belief systems on us all.
Edited to add; My curiousity compels me to ask if Lesbian's resent so often being lumped in the general category of 'gay'? Do gay men feel using the word 'gay' so inclusively denies them of their personal identity as with the word 'lesbian'? Is there better words to describe same sex oriented monosexuals? You see, I don't regard these labels as political as much as I regard them as personal.
Perhaps, some may think a different word or an acronym may have been better, but I have no problem standing under the 'queer flag' in the struggle for equality and tolerance. So, for me, the term 'queer' used in this way is purely political and open to anyone who chooses to stand up for the rights of ALL people whose CONSENSUAL sexual interests are veiwed as deviant or undesirable by those that seek to impose their puritanical belief systems on us all.
Edited to add; My curiousity compels me to ask if Lesbian's resent so often being lumped in the general category of 'gay'? Do gay men feel using the word 'gay' so inclusively denies them of their personal identity as with the word 'lesbian'? Is there better words to describe same sex oriented monosexuals? You see, I don't regard these labels as political as much as I regard them as personal.
Last edited:
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Stuponfucious:
"I'm just saddened by the fact that I couldn't possibly have sex with any of the three of you."
Why couldn't you have sex with Netzach?
H:
"So, for me, the term 'queer' used in this way is purely political and open to anyone who chooses to stand up for the rights of ALL people whose CONSENSUAL sexual interests are veiwed as deviant or undesirable by those that seek to impose their puritanical belief systems on us all."
I'm down wit dat.
" My curiousity compels me to ask if Lesbian's resent so often being lumped in the general category of 'gay'?"
Why? Last time I checked I was gay. I dislike the movement to make the term 'gay' male only.
"I'm just saddened by the fact that I couldn't possibly have sex with any of the three of you."
Why couldn't you have sex with Netzach?
H:
"So, for me, the term 'queer' used in this way is purely political and open to anyone who chooses to stand up for the rights of ALL people whose CONSENSUAL sexual interests are veiwed as deviant or undesirable by those that seek to impose their puritanical belief systems on us all."
I'm down wit dat.
" My curiousity compels me to ask if Lesbian's resent so often being lumped in the general category of 'gay'?"
Why? Last time I checked I was gay. I dislike the movement to make the term 'gay' male only.
John Doe
Justified Snob
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 54,121
Never said:
It's not so much a movement to make the term exclusive as it's movement BACK to that. It was originally used exclusively in reference to male homosexuals. It makes sense to me to do so, as most obvious gay men seem merry or cheerful or whatnot, whereas most obvious lesbians seem anything but jolly.
John Doe
Justified Snob
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 54,121
Netzach said:
I asked you once and you gave me some rigmarole about how you don't like to associate with the straight community, so I took that to mean you're a lesbian with slight bi tendencies.
I don't think you get to fuck me though, I'm a leeeeeetle bit of a top.
Why would that be a problem?
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Stuponfucious said:
I'm actually sexually and sometimes romantically into women but much more compatible with men emotionally and from a relationship standpoint.
They just work better.
I just don't find much of interest in the straight community and I'm not comfortable in it, socially.
I'm just more partial to the idea of fucking a guy rather than a guy fucking me
we are all wildly in theory land anyway--I found the sentiment flattering, thanks.
John Doe
Justified Snob
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 54,121
Netzach said:
Ah, understood and noted.
Sounds reasonable.
I'm just more partial to the idea of fucking a guy rather than a guy fucking me
I found the sentiment flattering, thanks.
Wow, I guess you haven't read too many of my posts.
I assume you refer to a strap-on sort of thing? I would not be averse to such a scenario. Quite the contrary in fact. Although MWG frightens me with her talk of table legs going...places.
none2_none2
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Posts
- 1,140
Perhaps my age is showing. I just don't like the word queer. It never had ANY positive connotations in my youth. It's just one more label, and I don't have any room to carry around spare labels. I think of queer and I think of thoughs like: peculiar or odd. (When I use to hear of the fraternal order of "Odd Fellows" I always wondered if it was a gay men's group.)
You can of course add some distinction or royalty to the queer word. Change it to queern (smashing of queer and queen words). It also sounds like a bird breed, but that isn't negative in my books.
The problem as I see it is that somehow within the subculture (and this may be typical of any subculture) a few decide what the many should say, believe. For some (or many) they take it blindly without question. For others, (such as myself) I take only what I want to, and leave the rest behind.
Labeling myself as "queer" is one of those silly things I'll leave for someone else to use on themselves. I can understand the desire to include other sexual minorities. A bi person or a tranny may feel very mis-labled being called gay. I just despise the word queer. If I were looking for a new term, the one that just popped into my head would be Saturn (Unfortunately, it may be construed as a male term because of its origins; that isn't my intention).
I just like it cause its a cool sounding word. It has an all surrounding rainbow (the rings). (On a more humorist thouight: Its about as close to Uranus as one can get -- yet not too close to Uranus for too homophobic straights or bi/gays with an anal phobia.)
As I mentioned earlier, I don't blindly follow or accept what others try to make out to be what we should say or believe. Another example would be this entire arguement about how homosexuality isn't a choice. With this premise, therefore, we should have our rights.
I don't like this logic at all. My rights or your rights shouldn't be based on whether we have no choice or not. If I was attracted to very short people (I'm somewhat tall.), I wouldn't have to prove it was a pre-disposition, to have my right to marry, etc. If you don't like it, tough luck.
Oh well, that is my two sense...
NOTE: I don't despise words that start with "q" or that kind of sound (such as Kwick Trip convience stores). In fact, in my part of the US coupons should be respelled to quepons. I will never change to call them kupons. That word seems too "yucky".
(Final NOTE: I am able to compromise though on some regional oddities. I have spent years trying to get rid of the "R"'s I have in waRshing machine, or eating squaRch.)
You can of course add some distinction or royalty to the queer word. Change it to queern (smashing of queer and queen words). It also sounds like a bird breed, but that isn't negative in my books.
The problem as I see it is that somehow within the subculture (and this may be typical of any subculture) a few decide what the many should say, believe. For some (or many) they take it blindly without question. For others, (such as myself) I take only what I want to, and leave the rest behind.
Labeling myself as "queer" is one of those silly things I'll leave for someone else to use on themselves. I can understand the desire to include other sexual minorities. A bi person or a tranny may feel very mis-labled being called gay. I just despise the word queer. If I were looking for a new term, the one that just popped into my head would be Saturn (Unfortunately, it may be construed as a male term because of its origins; that isn't my intention).
I just like it cause its a cool sounding word. It has an all surrounding rainbow (the rings). (On a more humorist thouight: Its about as close to Uranus as one can get -- yet not too close to Uranus for too homophobic straights or bi/gays with an anal phobia.)
As I mentioned earlier, I don't blindly follow or accept what others try to make out to be what we should say or believe. Another example would be this entire arguement about how homosexuality isn't a choice. With this premise, therefore, we should have our rights.
I don't like this logic at all. My rights or your rights shouldn't be based on whether we have no choice or not. If I was attracted to very short people (I'm somewhat tall.), I wouldn't have to prove it was a pre-disposition, to have my right to marry, etc. If you don't like it, tough luck.
Oh well, that is my two sense...
NOTE: I don't despise words that start with "q" or that kind of sound (such as Kwick Trip convience stores). In fact, in my part of the US coupons should be respelled to quepons. I will never change to call them kupons. That word seems too "yucky".
(Final NOTE: I am able to compromise though on some regional oddities. I have spent years trying to get rid of the "R"'s I have in waRshing machine, or eating squaRch.)
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Saturn is typically associated with death. As for it having rainbow colored rings - I hate the rainbow. I refuse to associate myself with something that looks like Rainbow Brite puked it up. How is it we have an community full of gay men but our logo looks like crap?
Stuponfucious,
We're jolly.
Stuponfucious,
We're jolly.
newbiegirl
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 5
Why further categorize when you could harmonize?
“I don't understand why being ambiguous is a good thing. The more slippery and unknowable something is, the less apt we are to accept it. That's human nature. Fear of the unknown.”
“This is what I don't get. Why shouldn't we celebrate what is different about us?”
Definition is formed through differentiation. Differentiation is the basis of prejudice.
Rather than acknowledging similarities, differentiation works to distinguish groups and becomes a means through which to target and persecute others. While prejudice is not motivated by differentiation, it is fostered by it. By focusing instead on similarities, there is no room for us and them mentalities, because there is no distinguishing between possible groups – or less motivation to do so.
“Anyway, looking at it, I think the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make is that people should acknowledge differences and not make them. And I think sometimes we cross the line and make the differences. Or sometimes they are made by the larger society.”
I agree.
It’s an interesting discussion, but an urging to focus on similarities seems well placed. We are all a group of individuals and each as inherently different as we are similar.
Could one be recognized as different, and then ask for the same rights (ie. marriage)?
It’s like an African Canadian group I worked with who was working to secure funding based on their differences. Ultimately, they wanted to be recognized for their differences. In the long run, their actions were slightly self-defeating, as they were distancing themselves from their ultimate goal: equality and equal societal stature on the basis of being the same.
It raises the question of if we can be equal and simultaneously recognized as different. With respect to society, and common perception, I don’t think so.
Why further categorize when you could harmonize?
Besides, any discussion with respect to terminology and jargon, is inevitably doomed to endless debate – albeit a possible avatar….
t
“I don't understand why being ambiguous is a good thing. The more slippery and unknowable something is, the less apt we are to accept it. That's human nature. Fear of the unknown.”
“This is what I don't get. Why shouldn't we celebrate what is different about us?”
Definition is formed through differentiation. Differentiation is the basis of prejudice.
Rather than acknowledging similarities, differentiation works to distinguish groups and becomes a means through which to target and persecute others. While prejudice is not motivated by differentiation, it is fostered by it. By focusing instead on similarities, there is no room for us and them mentalities, because there is no distinguishing between possible groups – or less motivation to do so.
“Anyway, looking at it, I think the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make is that people should acknowledge differences and not make them. And I think sometimes we cross the line and make the differences. Or sometimes they are made by the larger society.”
I agree.
It’s an interesting discussion, but an urging to focus on similarities seems well placed. We are all a group of individuals and each as inherently different as we are similar.
Could one be recognized as different, and then ask for the same rights (ie. marriage)?
It’s like an African Canadian group I worked with who was working to secure funding based on their differences. Ultimately, they wanted to be recognized for their differences. In the long run, their actions were slightly self-defeating, as they were distancing themselves from their ultimate goal: equality and equal societal stature on the basis of being the same.
It raises the question of if we can be equal and simultaneously recognized as different. With respect to society, and common perception, I don’t think so.
Why further categorize when you could harmonize?
Besides, any discussion with respect to terminology and jargon, is inevitably doomed to endless debate – albeit a possible avatar….
t
Similar threads
