DescentBB

flip wrote:You know Vision, I am kind to everyone and treat everybody exactly the same, but your right, I would have a hard time developing a genuine friendship with a gay. They make me uncomfortable and I don't like their mannerisms.

Vision made a good point. Perhaps because I was in a minor that brought me into contact with homosexuals in school, I've been used to having friendly conversation, and social interaction with pretty much all branches of the LGBT community, so no personal unease(although, I'll confess to a couple uncomfortable moments early on, and then realized that they have no interest in my sexuality any more than I do theirs, and that we're all just people). Hell, if I didn't relate or wasn't able to dine and party with gay people, my trips up to NYC would be greatly diminished!

flip wrote:...I would have a hard time developing a genuine friendship with a gay. They make me uncomfortable and I don't like their mannerisms.

And it is for this reason alone you should challenge yourself and get over your reservations so you can love people more freely. Isn't that what you want? Or does that mess with your "good vs evil" mentality if those terrible gays aren't actually terrible? Who knows, you might be forced to love everyone unconditionally!

Well, I say this, I do love everybody unconditionally, I try to build everyone up I meet. I'm good at it too , but I have very few if any friends, not sure I want any to be honest with you.

The less friends you have the less knife wounds in your back.

♪ ♫ (They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)♫♪

threads like this are basically my model for default-humanity...

help

Just an aside.
I always thought the overtly 'gay' mannerisms that some homosexuals exhibit were a manifestation of courage and rebellion in the face of the oppression they faced. It was a way to stand up and say 'Hell yes I'm gay and not going away so deal with your fears!'

Will Robinson wrote:Just an aside.
I always thought the overtly 'gay' mannerisms that some homosexuals exhibit were a manifestation of courage and rebellion in the face of the oppression they faced. It was a way to stand up and say 'Hell yes I'm gay and not going away so deal with your fears!'

I really like that idea Will. As much as I advocate for the LGBT community I get really annoyed with the stereotypical flaming queer. To me it is an annoying exaggeration just like overblown machismo and whatnot. It stems from my view that sexuality should be "matter of fact" and not something to wrap your identity around. In short, "you're gay? so what?"

But this is a good way to look at that type of gay expression so I think I will adopt it since it can help me become more tolerant. Thanks Will.

So you advocate for LGBT, but you want them to behave like you think they should? Does anybody else see a little irony somewhere in there?

"STFU and act NORMAL, I'm trying to HELP YOU!" hehe (it's late, and today sucked, you will get no polish from me )

I think Will is mistaken. It's a somehow romantic notion, though. Heh. All this time I thought they were just adopting these mannerisms because they liked how it made them feel (as is the way with such things), and they had a few screws loose, but it was actually a demonstration of courage! I've seen a few people that are so "courageous" it's positively stomach-turning.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So you advocate for LGBT, but you want them to behave like you think they should? Does anybody else see a little irony somewhere in there?

No irony or conflict. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

As I've said here many times I'm against groupisms. I think it's harmful, wasteful, and inelegant to prefix your identity with "as an American..." or "I'm a Christian and..." or "because I'm black..." or "I'm gay so..." and even "human beings should/shouldn't..." (et cetera). It keeps barriers between people for trivial reasons. I know it goes against our evolutionary history; people naturally seek belonging to family, social networks, business and trade. I think this is something we should try to evolve past. This goes both ways too, meaning, we should not purposefully place others into groups because, again, it is harmful and inelegant. Behavior as such defines why racism is bad and why LGBT persons are still fighting for the same rights as others.

So I absolutely do not want to tell LGBT people how to act. I want others to act civilized toward LGBT persons. For every flaming queer there are dozen of people who you would never recognize as gay on the street. I would tell a flaming queer to "chill" not because he was being "too gay" but because wrapping your identity around something trivial is bad form. Gay doesn't make you special. Of course, the real problem is that gay people do get special treatment, and that special treatment is abuse. If the group is being oppressed we have a civilized obligation to raise them up. Likewise, groups should be cut down when they oppress others.

Got it? Good.

STRAIGHT guys can also have these very-feminine mannerisms btw, best not to base anything around it.
This guy is sexually only interested in women. He's so mentally feminine he's practically a transwoman, but he still considers himself male and is only interested in sex with women.
[youtube]3pwQLkooAgs[/youtube] [youtube]-oa5vaYUTWA[/youtube]

Maybe he's a lesbian? heh. Point is gender and sexuality really can be separated. This guy is not gay.
Be on the lookout that you don't find yourself falling into the mysogyny hole of basically just hating on (over)half the worlds population: feminine.

If someone's getting all in your face and won't take a hint, try to keep this quote in mind, and think of the ★■◆● women put up with:
"Homophobia: the fear that gay men will treat you the way you treat women"
;P

roid wrote:
If someone's getting all in your face and won't take a hint, try to keep this quote in mind, and think of the **** women put up with:
"Homophobia: the fear that gay men will treat you the way you treat women"
;P

So, you refutes a generalization (i.e. how gay acts or how straight guys acts), based on an exception. But make one generalization yourself, i.e. what ****woman put up with?

i didn't think i was formally refuting, so much as just conversing. It was a way of introducing my POV that homophobia has a fair bit in common with mysogyny, and i do wonder if a large chunk of the psychology underlying them both isn't just one single phenomenon: a negative view of femininity.
I guess i'd like people to sit back and ponder this, in context of how they feel about feminine guys. What's really so confronting about being feminine? Are girls scary?
I mean, coupled with stuff like the western social acceptability of tomboys, vs the lack of acceptance feminine males get. Our culture sees masculinity as better than femininity, a girl acting boy-like is celebrated, she's seen as bettering herself, but a boy acting girly is seen as only lowering his social standing in the eyes of his peers, almost guarenteed ridicule. This double standard is fucked up. And it leads one to ask why, why do we as a culture see feminine as something inferior? It's bonkers, it hurts girls to grow up around these viewpoints, and it also hurts boys.

You disagree that women have to put up with notably more un-welcome sexually aggressive behavior from males than we males do? ok, i didn't expect that, but i'm listening

roid wrote:
You disagree that women have to put up with notably more un-welcome sexually aggressive behavior from males than we males do? ok, i didn't expect that, but i'm listening

Where did I say that?

First you made a generalization; "all the ****woman takes". I think this is wrong. I don't say it doesn't happen. However, our culture is build around the fact that, for a civilization to survive, we must protect our women. It might not be needed as much now, in present time, as some decades ago, but still this attitude towards women is strong in our culture. Which make me believe that most men are courteous, and can behave. (Though it looks like more independent women gets, more state power to protect them is needed also. But that's another topic)

Women make themselves attractive for men, thus she will get attention also. From some men she accepts this attention, from other men, she don't. However, she has a tendency to complain on the attention she doesn't like, for what ever reason (I'm not talking about abusive behavior here, though that can be subjective). For instance, women make themselves attractive on the work place, the man she accept attention from, she marry, the guy she do not accept it from, she can sue. Isn't there something wrong here?

Second, you made a comparison: "Homophobia: the fear that gay men will treat you the way you treat women". Again, leave out the abusive behavior, I don't think these two are comparable. Generally speaking I think attention from a guy is welcomed by a women, even from a guy she's not attracted to. To some extent of course. Whereas, as a guy and get attention from a guy is under no circumstances welcomed. That comparison lack Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal). Furthermore, that quote make more generalizations, it states that men who doesn't like attention from other men is due their own bad behavior towards woman. Really? Also, to some extent, there's a hidden premises in that quote too; a man who are nice towards women will accept attention from men.

For the record. I don't believe most gays are over-focused on sex. Is just that we do not notice those that aren't. Same tendency when girls think about men's attraction towards them, they tend to focus on guys they don't want attention from, and overlook all the guys who gives them no attention and those that are nice. I often say; people can only count to three, 1, 2, 3, and everything above that is always.

my browser just ate half my post.... >:( it was better before, but this quick rewrite is close enough:


So.... unwanted sexual advances are womens' own fault, because they dress attractively?
You do know that people just like to be attractive for it's own sake thought, right? We all dress to look good.
You're not going to say to your boss "Sorry i can't wear a suit to work anymore, i look too good in a suit, it's really distracting for everyone around me, they can't deal". No, you're probably gonna work it, you love that you look good in a suit. Even if all your collegues are men and you're totally not interested, looking good makes you feel good.

Women don't dress for your male benefit, don't be so egotistical. You are not the center of the world, and what women do does not revolve around the men around them.

Yeah, maybe you should be able to handle male attention (er... depending on what you mean by "accept"). You may be momentarily shocked by the attention being sexually charged in nature, but yes, you could be flattered.
Eventually you'll get sick of it though, especially after you deal with several assholes with a sense of entitlement who won't take no for an answer. And anyway it's your own fault, coz of how you're dressed. I think you look good, i'm a man, so you're obviously dressed to please men, you're here for me. You big tease.
Have you considered hiding your alluringly chizeled hunk shoulders under a burqua?

roid wrote:my browser just ate half my post.... >:( it was better before, but this quick rewrite is close enough:


So.... unwanted sexual advances are womens' own fault, because they dress attractively?
You do know that people just like to be attractive for it's own sake thought, right? We all dress to look good.
You're not going to say to your boss "Sorry i can't wear a suit to work anymore, i look too good in a suit, it's really distracting for everyone around me, they can't deal". No, you're probably gonna work it, you love that you look good in a suit. Even if all your collegues are men and you're totally not interested, looking good makes you feel good.

Women don't dress for your male benefit, don't be so egotistical. You are not the center of the world, and what women do does not revolve around the men around them.

Yeah, maybe you should be able to handle male attention (er... depending on what you mean by "accept"). You may be momentarily shocked by the attention being sexually charged in nature, but yes, you could be flattered.
Eventually you'll get sick of it though, especially after you deal with several assholes with a sense of entitlement who won't take no for an answer. And anyway it's your own fault, coz of how you're dressed. I think you look good, i'm a man, so you're obviously dressed to please men, you're here for me. You big tease.
Have you considered hiding your alluringly chizeled hunk shoulders under a burqua?

Non Sequitur.

I don't even know how that was a response to my post. I want your reasoning, not your associations.

:-/
my posts are fine

For instance; to define rape as unwanted sex is too ambiguous, and fall into this concept confusion which are too present in our modern time. Concepts has content too, not only essence. If unwanted sex is rape, then I have been raped many times, so called "duty sex" (I don't know if that make sense in English. We say "pliktsex" in Norwegian. A type of sex which one have when one's partner want it, but you're too tired or anything, but still do it to please her. Yes, men can have sex like that, which is something women can't believe because of their stereotypical view on male sexuality. A gender, by the way, that are so "opposed" to stereotypical views)
Some feminist goes even further and call every sexual intercourse between man and women for rape. But then concept confusion have reached a height in which communication is impossible.

The work place is the number one place where couple find each other. But, at the same time, it also a place where men can be sued for giving a woman "unwanted attention". Imagine a dating site where men risk a lawsuit for hitting on a woman. Unwanted attention brings us back to my first point, concepts. This too, is too ambiguous. It is, to take a descriptive term - attention, and give it a prescriptive content through a subjective evaluation - unwanted.
Does this mean we should accept unwanted attention? To some degree, yes. I get unwanted attention almost every day. That's part of life. If it gets beyond some limits I must of course do something about it. But, I believe women as well as men are protected equally here as human beings, thus there's no need to make any political point about this.

This blame the victim rhetoric is just some cheap attempt to make talking points. A attractive woman is protected by the law, if a man rape her, touch her or anything else, he has the blame, no doubt. But, to extend that right to involve protection from trade-offs, i.e. so called unwanted attention, then I would say she want protection from reality.
However, exactly what moral code is it a man breaks when he wrongly gives attention to a woman? Don't we have moral relativism today? Don't we have free sex and so forth? How about restore family values in which boys must grow up with a father who demand that he respect his mother. Maybe the very foundation of a man's respect towards women. I don't know, as I have said before, be careful of what one remove. If one don't know why we have such arrangements, we might not like the outcome.

"When I find a man who has more balls than myself" Selma Hayek to her mother when she asked; "When are you going to find yourself a man to marry?"

Since dawn of time, woman have demanded protection from men. The environment were hostile, and since it's women who give births, they must be protected. A farmer buy 10 cows and 1 bull, not 10 bulls and 1 cow. The first gives 10 calves a year, the latter 1 calve. A tribe would go extinct if they didn't protect their women, thus those tribes who survived had a protecting attitude towards women and view them as more important than men - men is the disposable gender. For instance, if one was a man, and survived Titanic, one was discredited as well. We can see this attitude even today.
As time went by, men made the environment safer, and women wanted to leave their role at home. But, she brought her protective demands with her out. As illustrated in the above quote by Hayek. Still men die on the ocean, die as construction workers, as garbage workers, etc. 95% of all work related deaths affects men, more men are homeless, men have a shorter life expectancy, higher suicide rate and more exposed to violence, and die in wars, more medical research are devoted towards women issues, 85% of stores in a shopping mall is directed exclusively against women, etc.

Why do I write all this? Just to make a point that feminism is not something new, feminism is just a extension of what she always have had - protection. She wanted to enjoy the same privileges as she always had at home when she went out. She wants access to jobs through quotas, or lower requirements, as with firefighters. Even self esteem is something she demands that men give her. And me, that thought self esteem was something that came from self. Because of this nonsense she demand no critique, critique somehow breaks down "self esteem", which has given us even more concept confusion - it's not called criticism anymore, it's called hate. Amazing.
If she really want a man that see bread crumbs in the kitchen, dust-balls in corners, afraid to get his hands dirty and run to the doctor at every opportunity, she can just demand one, I promise you, he will even crawl on all four if he thinks he will score points with her. But, a woman doesn't want a man like that, she want protection - a man she can feel safe with.

I don’t know, but this entire thing sounds like the confusion between “unwanted sexual attention” and “inappropriate sexual attention”.

Didn't embed it because it's got some language that isn't exactly E&C kosher. Pretty much sums up what I think of all of this, though.