| |
|
Not to dismiss the subject matter, but this particular thread strikes me as highly rhetorical and more than a little silly. I think, perhaps, that Synaesthesia has mistaken the perceived attitudes of certain members of the board as representing the default attitude of everyone on the board, and I think that this can be easily cleared up.
Some of hir impressions were undoubtedly inspired by threads such as "Public Displays of Emotion", wherein numerous individuals cited feelings of disgust towards 'straight het' couples, while citing feelings of approval or tolerance towards 'less-straight het' (i.e., gutterpunks or goths) or homosexuals publically displaying emotion (or affection).
I think it's important to note that these feelings may very well be sourced in a certain feeling of imbalanced restraint. It's difficult for a man who loves men or a woman who loves women to openly display their affection - and more difficult yet to accept that those with more vanilla or societally accepted tastes have far fewer difficulties.
I don't think that this is representative of an overall intolerant attitude towards heterosexuals - I think, rather, that it's representative of the focus of concern. These individuals feel - and rightly so, to a great extent - that there's no need to defend or deal with issues of normative hetersexuality when those with other tastes (anything not making a majority demographic, in other words) are forced to cope with intolerance on a daily basis. It's not my impression that anyone here harbors patently negative feelings towards heterosexuals exclusively because they're, well, heterosexual - and to determine that, one would have to ask. Furthermore, it can be difficult for someone standing on the outside to understand why it is that a person with an oppressed sexuality may require exclusatory devices during the process of acheiving liberation. These devices are generally transitory, and used for acheiving leverage - but someone who has not been put in the position of fighting quietly for the right to love who they wish has not been given the tools to understand.
On the flipside, however, this sort of unrestrained, free exchange where individuals who normally feel oppressed are generally able to express their feelings openly can feel (quite ironically) oppressive to individuals who do not deal with the same issues on a day-to-day basis. I think Synaesthesia has fallen victim to a misunderstanding, and nothing more. In attempting to defend hir point of view, s/he asked the question "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?" - Certainly, this is a rhetorical device and not truly a line of debate ; but people get emotional. In other words, can't we all just get along?
As far as 'too gay' goes, well ... That's silly. There's always a "too" anything, and I think that Whisky was probably answering the question within that context. Whenever you're claiming that a particular trend or personality device or preference has gone or could go 'overboard', you're likely to oversimplify the issue. It's a mechanism of communication in the English language. It was a simple question, and she provided a simple answer - she was in no way indicating that she felt a majority of homosexuals were 'too gay' - and I think it took a measure of defensiveness to respond to her the way some folks did (Flyboy, specifically, I think), pointing out that "Surely, there are even more folks who are 'too straight'." <paraphrased>. In making this point, you in fact validated her point's very essence - that identification with one's sexual identity can be taken to the extreme, no matter what that identity is. The knee-jerk response to her statements, while understandable, should be recognized as such. Rather than passing a judgement on homosexual behaviours or lifestyles, she was simply placing it on even footing with any other subject matter. Perhaps in political circles, this even footing does not exist - but in the idea-space, it could be construed as admirable at best, overly optimistic at worst, for assuming it's existance. Everyone here dreams of equality.
[ 27-07-2001: Message edited by: Frances ] |
|
|
