Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Having Homosexuality Shoved Down our Throats? Thanks, vicar...

Page: (1)2

deletia

08:08 / 24.07.01

From thread elsewhere:

Shouldn't there be something more to being gay rather than using direct or indirect attack on straights like you have used in this and other topics? The days of GLF exclusionary politics went out with the 70's. Or is it just some form of Gay Narcissism? With what you're coming up with on another thread its about time you explained yourself instead of attacking straights. There is a lot of implicit and explicit support for L/G/B/Tsvg issues on this site there is no use alientating your friends. Save it for the opposition

So, how gay is just too gay? And is the term later used by the same fellow - "straight-bashing", something which is causing problems for those people on Barbelith who happen, through no fault of their own, to be straight? Is "Straight/Gay" a meaningful distinction, and is it the only valid distinction (with "bi", and "TV/TS/TG", natch) when discussing sexual preference?

Guys?

Guys?

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:12 / 24.07.01

I'm just amazed nobody's yet accused anyone of only pretending to be gay because it's cool...

deletia

08:36 / 24.07.01

You're only pretending to be gay to get to sleep in the girls' room. And you know it.

08:38 / 24.07.01

%You may mock: but it always starts this way. First one moves into the community. Then a couple. Then suddenly you're inundated. Gays everywhere, breeding like rabbits, taking our jobs, our girls, pretending they like incomprehensible art, voting Paul out of Big Brother, they've got no respect for proper manly culture. Gays Go Home!%

[ 24-07-2001: Message edited by: ephemerat ]

Disco is My Class War

08:41 / 24.07.01

<valley girl>

Oh, right. Uh, maybe I should make a confession. I only ever claimed to be a lesbian on this bulletin board because I thought it would be so cool. Everyone would be so scared of you 'cause you're so, like, tuff and stuff. And it would make all the boys notice me? In this way that they would never notice the straight girls.... In real life I'm like this ultra-ultra-straight chick with long blonde hair and, like, really big tits and...

</valley girl>

deletia

08:51 / 24.07.01

Wow, Rosa, you sound gooooooorgeous. I'm a handsome, muscular (but only from playing comeptitive sports, not working out to look good) man who'd love to meet a real woman who likes girlish things and uncomplicated missionary-position sex.

D'OH! My cover's blown.

Loving how this is developing in contrast to how it might have in the Head Shop....eeenteresting.

Oh, and in the interests of fairbness I should point out that the above quote was apparently addressed to me in particular. I am very sorry for my misbehaviour.

It will never....NE_E_E_E_E_E_E_EVER happen again!

Disco is My Class War

08:51 / 24.07.01

I'm sorry, I only ever do really buff boys. Like, if you don't go to the gym every day, forget it, dude.

deletia

08:51 / 24.07.01

Hey, only because I'm too busy chopping wood, doing construction work, lifting heavy objects and indulging in non-deviant coitus.

I've got the body of a Greek god. Just, you know, not one of the gay ones.

Whisky Priestess

08:51 / 24.07.01

Well, as I'm sure you've all guessed, I'm a cigar-chewing androphobic dungaree-wearing Andrea Dworkin style bull dyke. And proud of it. Now who wants to be my femme?

Guys?

Gals?

Whisky Priestess

08:51 / 24.07.01

And to answer Tann's original question, I think "too gay" is when m/f gays start living the scene because it's the only thing that gives their lives meaning. The kind of people who, if they weren't gay, wouldn't have any distinguishing features at all. The ones for whom their sexuality defines every single other aspect of their personality. The ones who don't really like Judy Garland or reading Wallpaper* but who feel they have to live up to the uber-camp stereotype. The ones who call boys girls, or girls boys.

In short, the boring ones who have nothing else to say but "I'm gay"

deletia

08:51 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Whisky Priestess:
Well, as I'm sure you've all guessed, I'm a cigar-chewing androphobic dungaree-wearing Andrea Dworkin style bull dyke. And proud of it. Now who wants to be my femme?

Guys?

Gals?

I thought I already was...

Erm. In a manly, sexually-dominant way.

A way which says "I'm straight". And nothing else.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:51 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Whisky Priestess:
And to answer Tann's original question, I think "too gay" is when m/f gays start living the scene because it's the only thing that gives their lives meaning. The kind of people who, if they weren't gay, wouldn't have any distinguishing features at all. The ones for whom their sexuality defines every single other aspect of their personality. The ones who don't really like Judy Garland or reading Wallpaper* but who feel they have to live up to the uber-camp stereotype. The ones who call boys girls, or girls boys.

In short, the boring ones who have nothing else to say but "I'm gay"

But surely if such commonly-cited and yet rarely-sighted people exist, they are vastly, vastly outnumebered by the people who, as Haus puts it, say nothing more than "I'm straight"...

As for the idea that "The ones who call boys girls, or girls boys" are 'too gay' - I think, Whisky, that this may be taking an ever so slightly simplistic and dismissive attitude towards the issue of gender roles, identity, and so forth...

10:45 / 24.07.01

Um, can somebody point me to the original thread/comment, it sounds pretty entertaining... if nothing else.

10:46 / 24.07.01

Look, I have to stand up for syn-whatsit here: s/he wasn't saying you were being 'too gay' or anything of the sort. He was asking, I believe, whether it's necessary to attack people every time they say something about their own relationships that doesn't explicitly take the gay/lesbian point of view into account.
But carry on with your schoolyard pisstaking if it makes you feel better.

deletia

11:00 / 24.07.01

I think that you have misread the thread, Ariadne. As indeed have I. The difference being that I'm doing it on purpose for comic effect. I'm sure Syn knows that I am just being amusing. That's my gimmick, you see. I'm a wrestler, but I am also kind of a post-modern joker.

But I'm sorry. I feel bad. It will never......NE_E_E_E_E_E_E_E_EVER happen again.

To kill two birds with one stone: Jackie, the thread is "RL Slash relationships". To clarify for Ariadne, Syn was reacting to my belief that the queerness of slash *specifically* is a peculiarity of its textual status, and in the real world (without practical recourse to which all theory is meaningless) whether or not slash relatonships are gay or straight is irrelevant, and slash will become straight as equality between the sexes allows the bridges of starships to be staffed more equally.

His tendency to read "queer" as "gay", thus assuming that I was maintaining that all slash was same-sex, made even more surprising by his subsequent assertion that he was a queterosexual, and his yet subsequent accusations of "straight-bashing" (because I don't know about you, but around my way straights are often accosted as they leave "straight bars" and beaten up by packs of ravening queens), provided the basis for this little flight of fantasy.

[ 24-07-2001: Message edited by: The Haus of Jericho ]

11:05 / 24.07.01

Jackie Nothing Special: This thread is a spin-off from RL slash relationships?
To get a fair picture you would really need to examine other of Haus texts to get the full context.
Seeing you posed the question Haus. In the light of you mentioning that you're quote:...not identifying as a gay man...
What exactly do you identify as?
Do you think there is such a thing as being too gay?

11:05 / 24.07.01

Syn's comments related to several threads, and I don't believe I've misunderstood what he meant. Whereas you have, on purpose.
Carry on with your fun, I'm sure Syn can stand up for himself.

11:11 / 24.07.01

I'm with Ariadne on this. Don't you realise that you're actually proving my point?

Like Whorf says:
"You are without honour."

Give it up. You can only discredit yourself even further by pursuing this.

[ 24-07-2001: Message edited by: synaesthesia ]

deletia

11:19 / 24.07.01

Actually, the question of whether you can pull in elements of other threads is one of those thorny questions of Barbetiquette. But you mnay also wish to look at "Public Displays of Emotion", which Syn is also presumably citing as an example of my heterophobia.

Might be worth checking that one out too. Although watch for the accidental repetition. Didn't get round to editing it out.

Syn: I don't feel any particular desire to associate myself with any "-ality" as behavioural pattern identifier. But, to be honest, my particular sexuality is not something I would feel comfortable compartmentalising.

deletia

11:22 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by synaesthesia:
I'm with Ariadne on this. Don't you realise that you're actually proving my point?

I'm still not sure what your point is, to be honest. And of course you're with Ariadne - she's agreeing with you. That's how arguments work.

C'mon, man, lighten up. This is the Conversation - it's for japey, jokey, fluffy threads. Turn that frown upside down.

Rollo Kim, on location

11:52 / 24.07.01

'Face it, you're only pretending to be gay so you can fuck people of the same sex!'

deletia

11:59 / 24.07.01

And, more to the point, why are supporting characters called George in children's adventure books always lesbians? Have you ever met a male plucky teen detective's assistant called George? Never.

George, any ideas on this?

Ellis

11:59 / 24.07.01

"That's a smile! Not an upside down frown!"

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:21 / 24.07.01

Honestly, I don't know what everyone's getting so het up about...

WAKKA-WAKKA-WAKKA!

deletia

12:25 / 24.07.01

Turkish de-liiiiiight. Turkish de-liiiiight.

z3r0

13:01 / 24.07.01

Bah...

deletia

15:03 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by synaesthesia:
To get a fair picture you would really need to examine other of Haus texts to get the full context.

Actually, that's an interesting question, returning to seriousness for a moment. Which "texts" were you tinking of. The only ones that spring to mind are one about a form of primarily (or absolutely, depending on whom you listen to) same-sex erotica, and one which began with an account of somebody being uncomfortable with public displays of affection after having been queerbashed (which, incidentally, is why "straight-bashing" leaves a nasty taste in the mouth). Not exactly inappropriate spaces...

deletia

15:14 / 24.07.01

Oh, and incidentally, straw poll:

Am I only discrediting myself further? Should I be ashamed? Am I queering the pitch? And do people want homosexuality shoved down their throats? Vicar.

15:20 / 24.07.01

Am I queering the pitch? And do people want homosexuality shoved down their throats? – Haus of...

Speaking strictly as someone who gets heterosexuality rammed down my throat 5 days a week from 9AM to 5:30 PM, (let's not even discuss after hours...) I say bring on the buggery.

16:28 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Whisky Priestess:
Well, as I'm sure you've all guessed, I'm a cigar-chewing androphobic dungaree-wearing Andrea Dworkin style bull dyke. And proud of it. Now who wants to be my femme?

Guys?

Gals?

<sheepishly raises hand>

16:37 / 24.07.01

[ Inappropriate comment aboud an 8-hour workday of heterosexual throat-ramming goes here ]

Errrm. You're not discrediting yourself; but I think I understand where the leading quote is coming from.

Hm. Okay, let's say that I make a joke about lizard-fucking. Someone gives me a lash for doing so, because they happen to be a lizard-fucking enthusiast. I apologize, of course, as I really don't have anything against lizard-fuckers, honestly, it was just something that popped out of my fingers.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: Right Now as you read this, someone is getting angry because I appear to be associating "queer" with "fantastically bizarre unnatural behavior." Which wasn't my intent, either. I just tried to come up with something I didn't think existed to prove my point, not make ugly associations.

I am straight (downright vanilla, in fact). So some Barbelithians almost certainly explore kinks I've never heard of (note that I don't even know if "kink" is derogatory or not; if so, I will apologize and add that apology to the point I'm meandering around). But failure to anticipate the existence of said preference doesn't mean that I am morally outraged at its existence.

Anyway, as to whether it's caused a problem: I have definitely seen threads go off track because someone inadvertently offended a particular queer sensibility. But then I also kinda think that us breeders should just suck it up if we get lashed for something along those lines and come away from the thread the wiser.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Sometimes one says, "That joke was as funny as cancer" to someone whose mother is in chemo -- you feel very bad, they forgive you anyway, and all is well with the world. Cue the doves.

16:46 / 24.07.01

As z3r0 put it...

...Bah.

17:04 / 24.07.01

Ierene: From what I have written it would be fair to infer that I wouldn't intentionally or otherwise wish to discourage others from having space to discuss and explore sexuality issues. And the same goes for gender, race and disability too.

The aspect that I am highlighting is the intentional misuse of identity politics issues to oppress others. In short bullying. Yet again shame on you Haus.

DT: Agreed. That is one of the reasons what makes places like Barbelith what it is.

Before anyone else throws thier two cents worth READ THE REST OF THE TEXTS and if you have any issues make them in good faith. Failing to do so can only make the signal to noise ratio even more disproportionate than it already is.

Haus. Direct question time:
Do you really want to stop people exploring issues so we can end up in some sort of 'us' and 'them' situation?

It would defeat the purpose of having discussion boards such as Barbelith. Don't you realise your tactics are doing just that?

I was under the impression that your final remarks in the RL slash thread would have signalled some form of ending to the skirmish. Yet you deem fit to exacerbate things. Seeing you have seen fit to avoid the questions I put to you from the RL slash thread yet bring up a gross (in fact near slanderous) misrepresentation of as this topic heading I consider it entirely valid to re-present the questions you evaded in the previous thread. Make no mistake Haus. I'm calling you on this:

quote: Q: If you are dissatisfied with what you describe as 'tolerant good guys'. What criteria do you have for real 'good guys'? How would you know if someone was being a genuine or faking it? If people are to be accused of various behaviours those same people are entitled to have a full explanation of your thoughts.

It is also unfair to be so sweeping in your accusations. I challenge you to name names or retract your statement.

Ganesh

17:50 / 24.07.01

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Jericho:
Am I only discrediting myself further?

No, but I think you're needlessly, mercilessly goading Syn in a way which is overtly urbane and entertaining but is, at core, unkind. I think this thread is designed more to encourage ridicule than achieve compromise. Which, I guess, is perfectly within 'Barbetiquette'.

<waits for words 'pot', 'kettle', 'black' and 'cunt' to rear their beautiful heads>

deletia

19:45 / 24.07.01

Actually, laughing is only part of the project here. I am genuinely interested in whether there is a consensus that non-normative sexuality on the Underground should "be nice" or "save its energy for the opposition". That is, is being sensitive to gender and sexuality issues performative? Is saying "I am sensitive to issues of gender and sexuality" enough actually to make one so quo facto? Or is there still an onus on us to examine our own opinions and statements, be they on lizard-fucking or otherwise?

I don't think you are homophobic, Syn. I certainly don't think you're a bad person. But I do think you are at risk of being highly complacent about your status as "friend to the bendy". And I think you react incredibly badly to criticism.

I also think it was you who made what was a discussion on the limits of theory and the politics of slash highly personal by suggesting that there was some failing within myself which made me disagree with your position (not only rude, but as a rhetorical device cheap), and then that I, and others, should be extra nice to people on the Underground, what with them being so positive about non-normative sexualities. As I say, I was not aware that simple humanity had a merit badge attached.

But most of all, I detect in your arguments a lack of self-consciousness and self-awareness, a failure to apply any rigour to your own positions, which I find not only aesthetically unattractive but really a touch dangerous.

And what is this "name names" malarkey? Whose names? The A-Team? All of Chewbacca's children? What's behind this macho posturing?

[ 24-07-2001: Message edited by: The Haus of Jericho ]

Page: (1)2