Postmodern Critic
Morgan Bell
Jeff MusallWhy Is The 'Is Homosexuality Normal?' Argument Homophobic?
May 31st 2008 14:23
This year I have met two young men (one in real life, and one online) who believed that raising the question of whether homosexuality was normal or not was a sign of being clear-headed and objective. I pity these young men because they obviously have not taken the time to get to know people with homosexual tendencies and witnessed how beautiful and inspiring they can be. If they did so they would realise that they are clinging onto arguments made my their forefathers and other homophobes who are so fearful of homosexuality that they cannot accept that it is part of natural human behaviour.
Let's discuss the case of the person I met in RL first. A Sydney University psychology and history undergraduate student of many neuroses, recovering from mental illness and, admirably, vocal about it, we got around to talking about homosexuality, and he cast the problematic question of 'might not homosexuality be a mental disorder' in a 'sad but true consideration' kind of light. My first instinct was never to talk to him again. This probably had to do with the fact that I didn't think that much of him anyway - I would have had a different reaction if this question had been posed by someone I had more in common with.
Perhaps I should tell you a bit about my background. I was brought up to be homophobic (amongst other prejudices instilled upon me from a young age). This made my 15 year-old discovery that I was attracted to other women pretty mind-boggling. Comforting me in the face of the discrimination I knew I would have to face, directly or not, was how pleasurable it was to be attracted to women, and how natural. I believed I was a better person because I could appreciate the beauty of females. My homosexuality has brought me much inspiration, compassion for others and a love of life I never imagined possible - as did my heterosexuality when I discovered that - shock! horror! - I had those tendencies too. I now identify as pansexual. Actually, I now identify as someone who doesn't feel the need to define themselves, but I know that labels continue to be useful to a wide range of people, so I pander to those less enlightened than I.
One more thing: I believe that I choose to be attracted to women as well as men. I also choose to be attracted to things like clouds in the sky, a beautifully framed photo, an exquisitely painted landscape, or other such objects.
Anyway, I have seen first hand how homophobia comes about. 1. Not questioning the people around you who introduce homophobia to you in the first place. 2. Harbouring fear, generalised and/or specific, sometimes of your own sexuality. 3. Having little or no experience with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Back to that mall in Bondi Junction - I asked him why he thought homosexuality might be a mental illness, and he said that the continuation of the species depended on heterosexuality. In his world, he had doubts that homosexuality was part of the grand design for human beings. He was defensive about it. I told him that loving somebody was perfectly natural, and just because homosexual sexual activity does not lead to reproduction doesn't make it unnatural, and he didn't have any reply. I also told him that he should be careful about who presents this argument to, because, as a bisexual personal (yeah, I use whatever label is currently convenient, dependent on the context. With people who don't have much experience with homosexuality, 'bi' is a good one) I considered his argument in ill taste. I also mentioned that overpopulation is already a problem, so homosexuality serves a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down.
A few thoughts went through my mind. One was that this guy probably picked up this argument from someone older and (probably) more homophobic than him. Let's not forget that it was only in 1972 that homosexuality was taken out of the list of mental illnesses. Prior to that, open up any psychology textbook and it would have been lumped with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This argument somehow struck a chord with this poor, insecure Australian, and he modified it to fit his style. Seeing as it was pretty generic, I think it's pretty safe to assume he finds homosexuality threatening to his world. It is likely that he finds questioning his sexuality (which everyone should be doing, as often as possible) alarming, and feels the need to identify it as a mental disorder because it's not somewhere he wants to go. Either way, I feel sorry for him - he's a very conflicted character.
Later, something interesting happened. We were playing a game of 'Articulate', and I noted that he was a bit reluctant to come sit next to me as we were the last two people not to be part of a duo. We played for quite a while, and won, then he went away to sit in another part of the room. A little bit later the question of his homophobia came up, and he started listing reasons why he was not homophobic. The first was that he had had 'no problem' being on my team for the game. Now, if he really had no problem with my sexuality, it wouldn't even have crossed his mind that there would be a problem with being on my team. I should point out that a game of Articulate involves trying to convey a person, place, event or so on through your powers of description. It doesn't even involve physical contact, just talking to the other person.
I accused him of being a homophobe and he got agitated, saying that he didn't discriminate against anyone in any way. He then mentioned that he had had a meaningful relationship with a bisexual girl. Clearly this woman's sexuality must have been a shock to his delicate ego, and probably the first close-at-hand experience he had with homosexuality. In spite of, or because of, this experience, his homophobia was all the more apparent to me. No one around me wanted to believe that he was being homophobic, which infuriated me because this willfull blindness was incredibly self-serving. I should have argued the point further, but I was so sick of everyone in the room that all I could think about was when I could leave.
So, if you wanted it, there's the further proof of this individual's unfortunate homophobia.
Anyway, so then I came across Ahmed's post, 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. In it he says: 'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen [...]'
How homosexuality is supposed to corrode the fabric of reality remains beyond my mental power to conceptualise of. Perhaps, according to Ahmed, homosexuality encroaches upon heterosexuality? But heterosexuality has never been, and likely never will be, under threat. Heterosexuality has been historically viewed as socially acceptable, and with such a long history of a thriving culture, it is likely that it will continue to be engaged with in the future. It is part of popular culture, high culture, even of social expectations to this day. And if for some reason it goes 'out of fashion', well, don't despair: artificial semination will surely keep the species reproducing. It surprises me that just because homosexuality is becoming more visible and socially acceptable, people find it threatening. It is perfectly natural and normal for human beings to engage in many different types of sexual behaviour, including with both males and females (and not to mention people who don't fit into that strict gender binary). I may also point out that there are a plethora of sexual acts that heterosexuals can engage in that don't lead to reproduction (in fact, there is only one that does).
As I relayed to Ahmed, his need to position homosexuality as unnatural shows that he is so threatened by it that he will go to extremes to reduce its legitimacy in his world. However, he insisted that he was not homophobic, even though his first reaction to news of my pansexuality was to suggest that I work in the sex industry, going as far as to suggest I take up the degrading field of corpophilia. The implication here is that I am sexually promiscuous, lacking the moral standards that would keep 'ordinary' people from getting involved in pornography, and willing to engage in not just any fetishes but one of the most repulsive I can think of. Panphobia or homophobia, however you want to call it, Ahmed is yet to apologise for this comment, despite being reprimanded by the Orble administration on my behalf. As with the RL acquaintance, if you doubted the homophobia inherent in representing homosexuality as not normal, his homophobia clearly shows up in other ways.
Ahmed's attempt to be 'objective' about his question shows how detached he is from his emotions. He believes that they key to managing his insecurities is to brand the part of him that is scared stiff as justified. He intends to keep assuaging his fear by feeding off this homophobic argument that people more vehemently opposed to homosexuality before him have espoused. Perhaps he is not aware of how hateful he seems.
Ahmed has also brought to my attention that he is in favour of gay marriage because he thinks that people who aren't doing any harm should be allowed to get married. This is a good sign and I hope he will continue to take such a liberal attitude, even if his homophobia further comes out when he offers that gay adoption could be unsavoury a practice.
If he wishes to discuss the matter further I am happy to engage in such a discussion, instead of deleting his comments as I have warned him that I will on my other blogs.
So what do you think, people - have you come across this argument before? And if so, how have you interpreted it?
Perhaps I should tell you a bit about my background. I was brought up to be homophobic (amongst other prejudices instilled upon me from a young age). This made my 15 year-old discovery that I was attracted to other women pretty mind-boggling. Comforting me in the face of the discrimination I knew I would have to face, directly or not, was how pleasurable it was to be attracted to women, and how natural. I believed I was a better person because I could appreciate the beauty of females. My homosexuality has brought me much inspiration, compassion for others and a love of life I never imagined possible - as did my heterosexuality when I discovered that - shock! horror! - I had those tendencies too. I now identify as pansexual. Actually, I now identify as someone who doesn't feel the need to define themselves, but I know that labels continue to be useful to a wide range of people, so I pander to those less enlightened than I.
One more thing: I believe that I choose to be attracted to women as well as men. I also choose to be attracted to things like clouds in the sky, a beautifully framed photo, an exquisitely painted landscape, or other such objects.
Anyway, I have seen first hand how homophobia comes about. 1. Not questioning the people around you who introduce homophobia to you in the first place. 2. Harbouring fear, generalised and/or specific, sometimes of your own sexuality. 3. Having little or no experience with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Back to that mall in Bondi Junction - I asked him why he thought homosexuality might be a mental illness, and he said that the continuation of the species depended on heterosexuality. In his world, he had doubts that homosexuality was part of the grand design for human beings. He was defensive about it. I told him that loving somebody was perfectly natural, and just because homosexual sexual activity does not lead to reproduction doesn't make it unnatural, and he didn't have any reply. I also told him that he should be careful about who presents this argument to, because, as a bisexual personal (yeah, I use whatever label is currently convenient, dependent on the context. With people who don't have much experience with homosexuality, 'bi' is a good one) I considered his argument in ill taste. I also mentioned that overpopulation is already a problem, so homosexuality serves a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down.
A few thoughts went through my mind. One was that this guy probably picked up this argument from someone older and (probably) more homophobic than him. Let's not forget that it was only in 1972 that homosexuality was taken out of the list of mental illnesses. Prior to that, open up any psychology textbook and it would have been lumped with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This argument somehow struck a chord with this poor, insecure Australian, and he modified it to fit his style. Seeing as it was pretty generic, I think it's pretty safe to assume he finds homosexuality threatening to his world. It is likely that he finds questioning his sexuality (which everyone should be doing, as often as possible) alarming, and feels the need to identify it as a mental disorder because it's not somewhere he wants to go. Either way, I feel sorry for him - he's a very conflicted character.
Later, something interesting happened. We were playing a game of 'Articulate', and I noted that he was a bit reluctant to come sit next to me as we were the last two people not to be part of a duo. We played for quite a while, and won, then he went away to sit in another part of the room. A little bit later the question of his homophobia came up, and he started listing reasons why he was not homophobic. The first was that he had had 'no problem' being on my team for the game. Now, if he really had no problem with my sexuality, it wouldn't even have crossed his mind that there would be a problem with being on my team. I should point out that a game of Articulate involves trying to convey a person, place, event or so on through your powers of description. It doesn't even involve physical contact, just talking to the other person.
I accused him of being a homophobe and he got agitated, saying that he didn't discriminate against anyone in any way. He then mentioned that he had had a meaningful relationship with a bisexual girl. Clearly this woman's sexuality must have been a shock to his delicate ego, and probably the first close-at-hand experience he had with homosexuality. In spite of, or because of, this experience, his homophobia was all the more apparent to me. No one around me wanted to believe that he was being homophobic, which infuriated me because this willfull blindness was incredibly self-serving. I should have argued the point further, but I was so sick of everyone in the room that all I could think about was when I could leave.
So, if you wanted it, there's the further proof of this individual's unfortunate homophobia.
Anyway, so then I came across Ahmed's post, 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. In it he says: 'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen [...]'
How homosexuality is supposed to corrode the fabric of reality remains beyond my mental power to conceptualise of. Perhaps, according to Ahmed, homosexuality encroaches upon heterosexuality? But heterosexuality has never been, and likely never will be, under threat. Heterosexuality has been historically viewed as socially acceptable, and with such a long history of a thriving culture, it is likely that it will continue to be engaged with in the future. It is part of popular culture, high culture, even of social expectations to this day. And if for some reason it goes 'out of fashion', well, don't despair: artificial semination will surely keep the species reproducing. It surprises me that just because homosexuality is becoming more visible and socially acceptable, people find it threatening. It is perfectly natural and normal for human beings to engage in many different types of sexual behaviour, including with both males and females (and not to mention people who don't fit into that strict gender binary). I may also point out that there are a plethora of sexual acts that heterosexuals can engage in that don't lead to reproduction (in fact, there is only one that does).
As I relayed to Ahmed, his need to position homosexuality as unnatural shows that he is so threatened by it that he will go to extremes to reduce its legitimacy in his world. However, he insisted that he was not homophobic, even though his first reaction to news of my pansexuality was to suggest that I work in the sex industry, going as far as to suggest I take up the degrading field of corpophilia. The implication here is that I am sexually promiscuous, lacking the moral standards that would keep 'ordinary' people from getting involved in pornography, and willing to engage in not just any fetishes but one of the most repulsive I can think of. Panphobia or homophobia, however you want to call it, Ahmed is yet to apologise for this comment, despite being reprimanded by the Orble administration on my behalf. As with the RL acquaintance, if you doubted the homophobia inherent in representing homosexuality as not normal, his homophobia clearly shows up in other ways.
Ahmed's attempt to be 'objective' about his question shows how detached he is from his emotions. He believes that they key to managing his insecurities is to brand the part of him that is scared stiff as justified. He intends to keep assuaging his fear by feeding off this homophobic argument that people more vehemently opposed to homosexuality before him have espoused. Perhaps he is not aware of how hateful he seems.
Ahmed has also brought to my attention that he is in favour of gay marriage because he thinks that people who aren't doing any harm should be allowed to get married. This is a good sign and I hope he will continue to take such a liberal attitude, even if his homophobia further comes out when he offers that gay adoption could be unsavoury a practice.
If he wishes to discuss the matter further I am happy to engage in such a discussion, instead of deleting his comments as I have warned him that I will on my other blogs.
So what do you think, people - have you come across this argument before? And if so, how have you interpreted it?
Never be afraid to love... 
| 280 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You are making a few key mistakes, taking a lot of assumptions and well, at the end of the day I have to take your word for this other 'young man' you speak of.
I can't trust you on the finer details because you have disregard thereof, case in point my post was not titled 'Is Homosexuality Normal?' but 'Is Homosexuality Natural?'. Irrespective of what the definition of either means it puts into question the way you rephrase things to suit your mood. Unfortunately taking such liberties does not have a place in objective and rational discussion.
I might have given you the benefit of the doubt about the other 'young man' but there are two issues I can't look past, one is your inherint unconscious bias, the other is that I am getting this information from your perspective. There is another POV here and as such I can't just assume what ou're syaing is true, even if it is your experience it isn't the whole truth.
I do like how you make anything I say personal, it's as if I can't have an opinion unless I'm insecure about myself (possibly my sexual orientation?). See I am detached from my emotions when I discuss topics froma scientific standpoint because emotions will actually cloud my judgement, for you that may not be such a big issue but for me it is.
There can be no discussion here because you have this innate inability to keep any discussion from turning personal, it has to be that I'm insecure about my feelings and that is the source of my problems. It is nto a question of homosexuality or homophobia but a question of Ahmed who is 'insescure about himself, he may possibly be gay and that would perfectly fit in my world view'.
And here's the other thing;
It was a god damn joke and you blew it out of proportion, you still are! XD
As for apologising, normally I would but i've decided I'm going to be a jerk and not apologise since the only thing I would be apologising for is the joke being made in poor taste. I'm not going to apologise for something I didn't do, i.e. attack you on a personal level because I have some sort of dislike for you. I'm a fairly nice guy but like most people I don't like taking blame for things I didn't do.
The real difference between you and me is you have a very rosey outlook on life, if someone does not share that view you have then that someone has a problem. It would be inconcievable for you to believe someone has a different opinion to you unless that someone has a problem with him/herself.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Tracy
Comment by Louie
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
This comment you made
I think is the Tip of a MASSIVE ice berg when it comes to Homophobia, a lot of us are brought up to be homophobic and my theory is, that those of us that have, that then wake up to the shock that they are in fact this "horrible" creature themselves, have to go through a torturous journey of shame and guilt which fortunately for most of us ends in enlightenment that being gay is truly a wonderful situation to be in. Like you said, I think it has made me a better and far more tolerant person in many aspects of my life and I actually feel sorry for people who have never had to make such a personal journey, because, accepting yourself leads to so many other kinds of acceptances accross all areas of life. It saddens me to see people who havent made this journey live in a world of fear and hate, mostly of themselves.
This whole debate actually pisses me off, and I usually don't play, but I think I am learning the world needs to go through it so we get to a place where we are all loved and accepted for who and what we are. I guess I can thank Orble for that.
I think for those of us that have fought the battle, have to be tolerant of those who can't empathise and think that we have choices or that acceptance of yourself as a gay and homophobic person is easy.
Anyhows. The longer we take the high road the longer they have to meet our standards.
cheers Louie
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
That said, I don't think that everyone who raises the question hates gays, maybe they are just fighting the conflicting thoughts in their heads? After all, as you stated PoMo, most people are raised to be homophobic, it takes great strength of mind and character to fight against early indoctrination.
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
This is an interesting point, and one I have thought about quite a bit lately.
A question: If homosexuality does serve a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down, should Gay IVF be discouraged?
A thought provoking post, by the way.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Ah, you are not the centre of my world... It so happened that you were one of two examples that I used for this post. Why would I make up an elaborate story about meeting another person who asked a similar question? I could have focused on you alone, but I thought that I'd put your views into context with this other guy's.
you rephrase things to suit your mood
I'm sorry that I didn't get the title of your post right - I was thinking about different variants of the question you posed and I got a bit mixed up. I have edited the post above.
objective and rational discussion.
There is no such thing. This is why I didn't study science in uni: the people teaching it going around trying to claim that they are being 'objective' and 'rational'. No one has access to an objective reality because we are all subjective beings. No one thinks like anyone else, and therefore cannot come to the same conclusion with another, let alone a group of people. As for rationality, it's just another buzz word that has far too much currency with you non-postmodernists.
your inherint unconscious bias
Everyone is biased. No one is free of it. Hence the lack of access to an objective point of view. If an objective world did exist, no one would be able to see it. Thus, it's a figment of your imagination, backed up by people similarly hooked on its problematic premise. I celebrate my biases, and I think you underestimate how conscious I am about the way my mind works.
See I am detached from my emotions when I discuss topics froma scientific standpoint because emotions will actually cloud my judgement, for you that may not be such a big issue but for me it is.
The more you try to keep your emotions 'in check' the more warped your analysis will be. It takes courage to dispense with the armour of detachment and go into your personal feelings, much more than following some kind of restrictive emotional journey for the sake of 'being scientific' does. Contrary to popular belief, getting personally involved does not take away from an analysis - it only ads to it. You, Ahmed, have a personal reason for asking 'Is Homosexuality Natural?' - this questions inevitably gets you emotionally involved. In fact you ask the question because you have inspected it and your emotions tell you it is OK to go forth with this line of questioning. Why? Embrace your bias, examine your emotional landscape as part of your analysis. You are not an objective observer: you are shaping the history of this question by asking it in a way that has never been asked before. It means something to you that it could never mean to anyone else. You could not be objective if you tried. Where does the instinct to ask this question come from? Trying to be 'detached' will not impress me. By trying to attain detachment you are actually doing a deep disservice to your line of enquiry, because you are reluctant to accept the emotional factors that bring you to it. You're still every bit as emotionally involved, it's just that you're trying to suppress it all. How can that possibly help?
It is nto a question of homosexuality or homophobia but a question of Ahmed who is 'insescure about himself, he may possibly be gay and that would perfectly fit in my world view'.
So show me you are not insecure about yourself. Tell me why asking 'Is Homosexuality Natural?' is not a sign of homophobia. If you have something new to tell me, I would want to know.
I don't care what your sexual orientation is, and don't know you well enough to comment on it either way, I was simply saying that, from personal experience, people who are homophobic usually have issues with their sexuality. If you want to talk about your orientation I can recommend seeing a psychologist. You probably don't have a lot of gay-friendly friends, do you?
It was a god damn joke and you blew it out of proportion, you still are
Yes, 'jokes' are the perfect way to disguise mistrust, ridicule and disdain. If you had respect for my sexual orientation you would have made no such 'joke'. Dismissing it as toothless only ads insult to injury. You are implying that I am the one with the issues and that you have done nothing to cause offence. Well think again. I know a passive-aggressive slur when I see one. But in a way I should thank you, because if it hadn't been for that comment I wouldn't have started this blog, or written this post. And you wouldn't be having your prejudices examined by someone who has the patience to want to be a friendly guide.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
My best gay friend also disagrees with me on the 'nature vs. nurture' argument. He believes he was born gay. I am happy to respect your stance if you respect mine.
In a way, I don't think either homosexuality or heterosexuality are 'natural' - they are learned behaviours. It annoys me that when someone asks 'Is Homosexuality Normal/Natural?' they are trying to cover up their paranoias about homosexuality co-existing peacefully with heterosexuality, and not questioning what it means to be normal or natural, along postmodernist concerns.
If you're interested in how I think about sexual orientation being a choice, I would interpret your attempts to be heterosexual as half-hearted, because you didn't really want to stop being attracted to women.
I wasted too much energy worrying about how to describe myself to my friends. When I kissed my first guy on the day of the Mardi Gras Parade (I'm in Sydney and I was attending/participating regularly in it), of all times, I realised how much more fun I could be having if I didn't worry about labels and categories. I decided that my sexuality was fluid and ever-changing, and I was just happy to be me, and open to life.
I wrote a post on sexual orientation on Daily Inspirations that might interest you here. Enjoy.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
And then there's the panphobic, biphobic, transphobic, dragphobic, interphobic and heterophobic, within any part of the community... the more awareness we have of these issues, the better, I think. That's why I try to address discrimination in any form as often as I can.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Thats what Im all about!
Its true that labels are destroying us, confusing us. I tend to see things differently to other people because Ive always lived in a farm environment amoungst animals. When people say "homosexuality is wrong because animals dont do it" I laugh my arse off, and I'll tell you why....
Every animal in creation is bi sexual trisexual pansexual....Whatever! They do anything that feels good. My mare has been bred by other mares, my cats are all desexed and have no idea about sex itself yet roll around on the floor and do things they shouldnt know how to do if its all for procreation. Ive even seen footage of a wilderbeast humping a hydrant!
The truth is that animals will do anything to get off, and we are exactly the same, and we are so keen to prove that we are civilized that we have to label sexuality and bash it into categories when the actual truth is we are just like that wilderbeast humping the hydrant.....Try explaining a vibrator to him, I think he'd get it.
My mare has also been known to deliberately pee on the electric fence while in season. Hows that for a sex toy!
I was about 8 years old when I noticed I was developing a serious crush on spider woman. I was getting the fire and brimstone sermons and told to repent my evil ways - at the time I did want to unchoose it, very much. I was already strange and different and that was the last thing I needed. I got sick of pretending to perve on boys and came out as bi in my last year of high school. I got nothing for it except all my 'friends' stopped hugging me.
I believe it can be a lifestyle choice, but I dont think you can unchoose your orientation.
Watch Amercan Dad episode 'lincoln lover' its got great arguments for the choice side of it.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I'm glad that you got a lot out of the post, it required considerable concentration to write because it was so long and dense.
I would have gone into more detail about how I dealt with my sexual orientation but I didn't want to go too far off topic.
I didn't actually experience any shame or guilt over my sexuality... it never occured to me to actually feel bad about my orientation once I realised what was happening, so all those negative vibes I had reserved for homosexuality in general just completely dwindled away. I felt I had been incredibly misguided and massively prejudiced, and I felt bad about that instead. I felt like going back and apologising to everyone whom I had given the impression I didn't like homosexuals to. It was a huge shock to my system (I remember writing that I felt like I was swimming under water when trying to recontextualise my world in the light of this new revelation), but I dealt with it quite constructively. It made me ask myself 'Well, if I can be so wrong about this issue, don't I need to keep re-examining everything in my world on a regular basis?' I know I wouldn't be the postmodernist I am without having gone through that journey.
I would so choose to be non-heterosexual over Heterosexual any day - it opened me up to thinking outside the box even further, and has informed my identity in a major way.
Thinking back to the 'nurture vs. nature' argument, a gay American law exchange student I met in Stonewall (for those who don't know, Sydney's most famous gay pub/hotel/dancefloor area) asked me 'who would choose to be gay'. I would. It's like that philosophical question: If you had the choice between being free of pain, and living in a society of people who were also free of pain as long as you kept a person trapped in a cell who experienced pain all the time, or pressing a button, setting that person free and having to experience pain yourself, what would you choose? I would choose to press the button, because I had already explored the previous state. I am forever attracted to the unknown.
And I also feel sorry for people who don't have to experience what it's like making your own way in the world of romantic and sexual politics. I totally reinvented what romance was to me. Before I expected to engage in particular rituals I had associated with heterosexuality, such as receiving red roses and being bought sparkly jewellery, and now all that seemed irrelevant. Not that those things can't be touching and meaningful to people who engage with them, but suddenly my world became so much more complex. Like, how could you really tell if you were attracted to someone, and what attracts you to them? It became about so much more than gender.
This whole debate actually pisses me off, and I usually don't play, but I think I am learning the world needs to go through it so we get to a place where we are all loved and accepted for who and what we are. I guess I can thank Orble for that.
And thank you for your candour and honesty. I was reluctant to write this post because I was worried it might get me down. But then I realised it didn't have to if I didn't let it. I could perform a useful sources for both those that are already secure within themselves and those who are still struggling with their inner turmoil, add to public discourse on a topic which needs to be discussed much more prominently than it is now. And all of that makes me feel happy.
Thanks for dropping by, I really appreciated your comment.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Again, taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my point of view, honestly I'm not surprised you're an 'english literature person', they'd have your head if you tried taking such liberties with words in any science degree
You lack a basic understanding of what science is, which is essentially a pursuit for the absoloute truth. While the ability to achieve that goal is a matter of another discussion the only way in which it could be achieved is through objectivity. Believe it or not science is based on the simple fact there is a truth to everything, when scientists talk about hteir respective fields they attempt to be as objective and rational as possible because science is all about getitng the facts right. It isn't about skipping around day dreamingly with 'oh but there is no objective truth', 'oh we're subjective beings'.
You do not even understand what a rational discusion is and yet you're trying to have one with me? Are you just trying to make yourself sound smart?
there is a difference between 'celebrating' your biases like a fool and understanding they will hamper you from finding the truth. Just because an inherint bias exists in all of us does not mean we should, like you, embrace it. Such actions are dangerous and only those who are too caught up indulging themselves in their own ego would do so
That is an absoloute load of bullshit and I'm sincerely glad people like you tend to represent the bottom denominator of societies population. God forbid such a fool be put in charge of the sciences.
No, it is easy to fall into the warped thinking you have 'gee I am so comfortable with my feelings', it takes strenght and self control to put those aside and look at matters clearly. Emotions do not help when researchin, there is an absoloute truth that exists which will continue to exist irrespective of your petiful emotions. I'm sorry but Niels Bohr did not think 'wow when things go around in orbits it looks so lovely... I'm sure electrons go around the nucleues of an atom because it just feels so right...'.
I'm sorry but the sciences do not exist so that people might go on intellectual excercies, it exists because some people, a lot of people, are looking for facts. Science is not just a journey of spiritual fullfilment, it is a study about the world around us. The world exists based on objective principles, therea are no ambiguities, things fall to the ground, the earth goes around the sun. It's just that simple sweetheart. We cannot take liberties with those simple facts and we often find ourselves asking 'why?'. Why are things the way they are? That is what I'm trying to find out. If that is homophobic then so be it, but you're no different to religious nuts calling my character into question for talking about evolution.
There's quite a few things wrong with your statement, but it all goes back into your inability to understand science (or your fear thereof). I'm not going into just how dangerously wrong what you are saying is except to say that if that is how science worked we'd still be under the notion the earth is 6000 years old.
My only bias is my bias to learn about the world, I have no other biases.
I will continue to ask such questions, these questions are not for the sake of spiritual fulfilment and what have you, these questions are asked for the only purpouse of undrestanding the world, nothing more, nothing less. If you cannot put this besides yourself it is because you are uncomfortable with the truth, for whatever reason you see it necessary to turn anything I say into something personal, bypassing my scientific arguments and calling my character into question. Unfortunately for you I'm not stupid enough to fall for such a pathetic trap for the second time. Like the saying goes, 'never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.
I'm sorry, I am trying to be objective and I am being objective by only using facts rather than opinions. I'm not saying I can be totally objective, but that is no excuse for me to fully throw away any and all forms of reality out the window in favour of my emotions simply because it makes me feel good or whatever else. The truth will continue to exist irrespective of my emotions and will not be found if I start arguing about peoples character rather than what they have to see.
For me learning is about learning, for you it seems to be about making yourself feel better, if it doesn't do that then it should be avoided.
I'm not trying to impress you, perhaps you are being impressed by me? I dunno, but I never did try to impress you. SO where does this instinct to ask this question come from? Haha, I'm a naturally curious person, I'd just as well ask why is the sky blue as i would ask is homosexuality natural. Like I said, my pursuit of knoweldge is simply to learn, that is my bias and my 'instinct'.
Of course I will bring some emotion into it, I am not a machine, however these emotions are fairly clear and unambiguous, it's my desire to learn and perhaps engage in rational and objective discussion
I let the facts speak, then I give my opinion based on those facts. Whatever emotional involvement I have is minimal, probably negligable. I'm not some emotionally unstable fool who cannot accept fact vs. fiction.
You live in a world you've created for yourself, one that is perfectly imperfect. I live in a world where I recognize I'm not perfect, but the place I live in is perfect. Nothing happens by chance and everything has a reason, all I'm trying to do is find that reason. If someone disagrees with me I look at the facts and see how they work out, sometimes there can beno agreement, but even that is an acceptable conclusion to any discussion, far better than accusing people of having alterior motives and questioning why they ask questions simply because I don't like that they are asking it
And like they say, never argue with an idiot, they will bringyou down to their level and beat you with experience.
I will give you the last word here too, in fact I should never have said anything to begin with. Now that I am fully aware of what kind of person you are I have come to realize that there is no chance of discussion. If your idea is that a rational discussion cannot take place and that I have to start taking this discussion on a personal level, a discussion that for me is based completely in the realm of science then you are asking me to argue like a child. I'm sorry but humans did not reach this point we are in the sciences by bringing each others characters into quesetion.
Your inherint distaste for a quest for an absoloute truth is initself disturbing as is your irrational thought process. Take it up with people who agree with you, because they are the only ones you are ever going to be happy with.
I'm not interested in trying to reason with you. To me you sound like just about every other crackpot I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with.
Don't feel too bad though, take solace in knowing you're probably the biggest left wing crackpot I know. And if I gained anything from this it is the comfort of knowing their are insane people on both sides of the fence who refuse to look at any facts in favour of their emotions and who would rather turn a discussion personal than try at all to have it =)
oh and again, I'm not gay -_- haha, I know you'd just love that but sorry.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
It must be difficult to grow up in a rural environment in regards to dispensing with homophobia. I don't think Sydney is nearly progressive enough, and it's one of the so-called 'gay capitals' of the world!
I think every human being is bipotential. We all have the capacity (and opportunity, unless you were brought up in a strictly same sex environment) to be attracted to both sexes. It's just that we are conditioned to express desire for the opposite sex, so whatever feelings we may have for the same sex are not gone into or repressed, until the fog starts to lift and we feel free to be attracted to anyone.
I came out as gay to my friends a few months after I realised I was attracted to women, and they all surprised me by being okay with it. However, one friend passively-aggressively said that she was cool with it 'as long as you don't try to come on to me, or whatever'. But when I told my friends that I was attracted to a guy I noticed a slight shift in their treatment of me. They were suddenly more friendly and forthcoming when discussing who they were attracted to, and included me more in such discussions. In short, they felt more comfortable around me. I was repulsed, because I didn't want them to treat me any differently, but apparently my newfound heterosexual impulses got me in 'the club'. It almost put me off expressing my heterosexuality.
Thanks for the 'Lincoln Lover' tip, I will look it up.
Have a nice day,
Epiphanie
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
its going to take many more generations before it is accepted fully
Well some people have already accepted it fully, and the number of people who accept it fully is expected to grow, but there will always be some cult or sect that doesn't accept it, even many generations from now... I take comfort that I am forward-thinking, mindful of history, and living in the present.
That said, I don't think that everyone who raises the question hates gays, maybe they are just fighting the conflicting thoughts in their heads?
Homophobia was defined as fear and/or hatred of homosexuals by dictionary.com, so they might simply be afraid.
After all, as you stated PoMo, most people are raised to be homophobic, it takes great strength of mind and character to fight against early indoctrination.
I actually think it's the other way around. It's difficult to maintain such a high level of prejudice. It's draining, it's demanding, and it takes its toll on you. The moment I stopped fearing non-Caucasians, non-Europeans and homosexuals was the moment I felt light, free and happy. I found letting go of my prejudices easy, because I wanted to. It gave me peace of mind.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Thanks for your comment -
If homosexuality does serve a productive role by keeping the number of progeny in the world down, should Gay IVF be discouraged?
Only if heterosexual IVF is also discouraged at the same time... otherwise, gay people should be able to use it just like people of any other sexual orientation.
However currently the number of people who use IVF is relatively small, so I don't see it being a target in the future.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I am leaving for England tomorrow, so I have to go and pack now and do not have the time to compose a post of the length your comment requires. I may not be able to get back to you for a few weeks ahead, even.
It is my hope that you will see that I am intelligent person with a lot to offer in any debate. In the meantime you may wish to look up postmodern approaches to science, so that my approach doesn't seem so foreign to you. Richard Rorty might ease you into it, as he also believes in absolute truth.
All the best now,
Epiphanie
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
firstly, i dont think sexuality is the same as love or beauty, i think sexual attraction comprises of the body of another person turning you on and the desire to follow through on that arousal with a sex act . . . all too often we say something or someone is attractive, beautiful, charming, alluring etc when it really has no basis in sexual desire, they are just aesthically pleasing or emotionally fulfilling
secondly, sexual desire and sexual behaviour are two different things, a multitude of social factors contribute to sexual behaviour, sex acts are regularly performed by people where there is no attraction on one part
thirdly, i think sexual attraction and desire are involutary and are not choices, i think people are predisposed towards one gender or the other (or both, or neither etc) and people are born with their sexual desires programmed in . . . environmental factors may inhibit the resulting behaviour but i think the desires are unchangeable it it just a matter of if and when people decide to be true to themselves
i consider homosexuality to be "natural" as it occurs naturally across humanity and the animal kingdom currently and throughout history without being induced or manipulated
a friend of mine when confronted with the "gay isnt normal" argument often says, whats normal anyway? just because it is less common doesnt make it wrong
from a scientific point of view i think it is entirely possible that homosexuality is hereditory, there may be a gay gene, it may be caused by a less common hormonal balance . . . homosexual behaviour may correspond with child sexual abuse, although i doubt it . . . i like that we continue to study it, another of my friends is gay with a straight identical twin and they participate in studies
i would only hope that as a society we use the information as interesting facts to facilitate acceptance and not try to find a "cure" . . . that is what most gay people worry about, what is the purpose of understanding the science of why they are gay if they have no desire to change it
many gay people chose to have heterosexual marriages because they prioritise other factors over their sexual desires, but you often find later in life when they are financially secure and confident in their own skin that they stop under-valuing their natural sexuality
only an individual can declare their own sexual identity and decide whether they want to publicly acknowledge their sexual desires . . . i can understand people in certain circumstances choosing to remain in the closet as homophobic hate crimes really are something to fear
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I posted this up on the Post of the Day.
Ahmed, some comments about your comments:
You seem to have an idealistic view of science and what it stands for. Sure, it's meant to be, ideally, a pursuit of the truth, but scientists are people too, and are just as biased and emotional as anyone else.
You say a few odd things:
- this is an irrational thing to say, full of bias and stereotypes.
- this is an entirely offensive, hateful statement. Bottom denominator? Fool? You clearly have strong biases which cloud your judgement.
Personal emotions seemed to play a large part of the love of physics, at least.
Max von Laue on wave-particle duality: If that turns out to be true, I'll quit physics
and my favourite, Richard Feynman:
and, of course, Albert Einstein, with his most famous quote regarding quantum mechanics:
Ahmed, you went on to say:
It'd be nice if this were true, but perhaps you should examine your motives a little closer. It seems pretty obvious to me that you are, in fact, quite biased, even based on this one comment.
Another massive flaw with your arguments is the age-old problem of the veracity of facts. What are your sources? Do you reference them? How do you know that the original creator of those facts weren't biased? If they were, then you are merely carrying that bias.
This is in direct contrast to the generally accepted theories of quantum mechanics. What happened to your trust of science?
Actually, the truth is that science is heavily reliant on character. Well, reputation, at least. The entire scientific world seems to hinge on the idea of trusting reputable scientists.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
It seems perfectly lkely that you could label Homosexuality as a disoreder in the sense that Aspergers is a disorder. This is not to allow the connotations out - all I mean is that it could possibly be a psychological condition derived from certain abnormailities (again, not wishing the connotations, abnormal in the sense of not they normal, or the usual) in the brain.Missing the point here - All i mea is there may be a cause for homosexuality from wtihin the way the brain works. This could be complete rubbish; I'm just speculating.Thing is, I do think we need to be able to look at things like this, i as objective terms as possible, and while I'll gladly admit Ahmed goes a little bit mad now and then, I thought the original article was quite good.
Now I completely understand that your personal experience and P.O.V makes the idea of homophobia completely repugnent; but there's a point at which we have to accept that we learn by questioning and theorising, and that this doesn't mean those of us who try to pull things apart are filled with anything worse than curiousity. And my hoest feeling is that when we begin labelling things as 'hate' left right and centre, we begin to make the idea of hate itself seem a bit more justified.
they obviously have not taken the time to get to know people with homosexual tendencies and witnessed how beautiful and inspiring they can be
Tangental, and not meang offence but i found this a bit amusing. I mean sure, gay people are cool, but you know... they're not elves.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
How exactly did those characters biuld? Until Newton showed off his discoveries he was not at all well known or respected, neither was Einstein, do some research
EVER example you are bringing up about the scientists is completely irrelevant, an inspiration is not the same as a discovery, a love for facts is not the same as making up stories based on emotions to prove facts.
Try to take what I'm saying in its whole context, dont make up crap and put it in a fake context and parrot it around like this.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Do you know how facts are collected? In fact the sources I used forthat post pmc is riding on WAS BIASED IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUALITY. The reason I went for that source and OPENLY ADMITTED IT was because of inherint bias.
THough the truth is the truth, facts are derived from reality, not made up and a fact is just that, free of biases. If you want to question my sources then BY ALL MEANS, but if you're going to tell me emotions are better than facts because of this?
What are you trying to say? Let me quote ALbert Einstein 'I don't believe god plays dice'. Let me further add: I, AS In, I, me, don't believe homosexuality 'just happens', I believe there's a reason for it happening and I want to know that reason.
So I don't see the relevance of it with quantum mechanics, it seems like you're pulling irrelevent examples off the air just to counter what I'm saying. Well actually that is what youare doing.
Exactly, and what is your point? Because as I already said, reputation builds from a certain something that has everything to do with facts.
If I discover how to travel through time tomorrow I'll be well known throughought the scientific world, if I come up with some crackpot theory I will remain just as I am, no one will pay attention. Even if I pull some elaborate story about a flux capictor, and what have you, it's just a story, unsubsantiated, untestable, unprovable. That is what I am against, and I would appreciate it if you could accept that your attempts to compare a love of science with an appreciation for the cold hard truth just don't gel very well with me.
A fear of the simple question, because god knows, it might have an unfavourable answer, is the true great injustice being done. What did PMC do when she saw that post I made so long ago? Think 'gee Ahmed is homophobic, anyone who asks that question is homophobic'.
I'm sure you agree with that, of course it's homophobic. It jsut feels right doesn' tit? Well I've had a lot of uncomfortable questions asked of me so I'm kind of numb, forgive me if it sounds homophobic, because I'm not.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
The fact that someone may argue that their religion claims such a practise as abhorrent, abnormal and an evil offense to 'god', does not mean that this a scientific fact! It just makes it a religious based homophobic concept.
The fact that psychiatry now admits it was wrong, to have classified homosexuality as abnormal, should have had anyone of today's world satisfied, that the argument of whether it is "normal" or "natural" irrelevant, and in fact to raise such a question, is to betray a certain negative attitude towards the topic, or ignorance of it, or, demonstrating that the person is still within the clutches of religious or culturally embeded homophobia.
As for my own experience, I always knew I was attracted to men. From the age of four, I can remember knowing this. From the age of 10 or so, through playground antics and general social inter-actions, I became troubled about my sexuality, and chose to hide it, because of the anti-homosexual attitude my religion, the law and society in general, had towards homosexuality.
The 40 years of experiences I have had, of homophobia, in all its hues, strengths and justifications, has given me the knowledge to learn to identify the now more subtle ways of the bigot and homophobe.
Ahmed stated;
Quote:
'In a way I sympathise with the extremist religious groups claiming that homosexuality will destroy our countries and governments. The long term effect of homosexuals is yet to be seen..
Unquote
What does, "In a way" mean?
What way?
Anybody who agrees with that statement, who is also in possession of an average suburban intelligence, and has studied some history at school, even in its basic form, knows homosexuality has been around as long as mankind, and has never 'brought down' any culture.
In fact, the reverse is true; there is a lot of evidence that points to homosexuals enriching cultures of all kinds, through the arts particularly.
In Ancient Greece, it was openly accepted, as was bisexuality. In Ancient Rome, it was considered normal for a master to have homosexual sex with his slaves.
Nowhere in any history, that I have read, has the downfall of a society been attributed to homosexuality.
For anyone to say they "sympathise" with such a statement by extremist religious groups (which ones Ahmed does not identify), either betrays a homophobic attitude, or a retarded or simplistic intellect, and/or, a total ignorance on the subjects of sexuality, history, psychology and society.
By the way, the Bible is a wonderful book, but it is not an historical record. For if its veracity was challenged in court, the Bible would surely fail the test of evidence.
Following the bigoted ideals of a fanatical doctrine, whether it be Jewish, Christian or Islamic, does not exonerate a person from being homophobic.
The first step towards solving a problem, is admitting you have a problem in the first place....
Comment by Ellis Currer Bell
Australia Day 2008
Computer Journal
i too am an "english literature" person and i refuse to consider this as some kind of defectetive quality. some how, not too sure just yet, but some how i think defining charactter by your undergraduate degree is somewhat limiting. god forbid after all people like "us" get to the healm of the sciences.
wake up.
for anyonme actually interested in discussion (of a theoretical kind) of homosexuality and its "abnormality according to existing illusuions of heteronormativity should read Eve Sedgwick "epistemology of the closet" and judith butler's gender trouble. maybe once these polemics are read ignorance can be quashed to a certain degree.
Ahmed, please widen you horizons or you are doomed to being trapped within binarys- an existence that is limited in the most profound sense.
and finally PMC thank you for sparking a much needed debate. the minute we consder the natual illusion of the abnormality of homosexuality is the minute our society and civilisation dies. really your not the lowest denominator, your past denominators and such distinctions and im sure those who do not see such discussion as being beyond measures and stats are death in their own right.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
Not meant to offend, just trying to tell it like it is.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
Funny answer!
Seriously though, I think you have missed the point. If there is to be debate about what drives hetereosexuals to react aggresively towards homosexuals (males especially), then the differences between our sexual behaviour surely must be a main catalyst.
If I am to assume correctly, your tongue in check answer was used to point out that heterosexuals also practice sodomy, which is undeniably true.
However, I believe it is safe to assume that the ratio of sodomy being used as a main sexual practice between homosexual males compared to heterosexual couples would be much higher in the former, rather than the latter.
Also, I also believe that the practice of sodomy within a heterosexual relationship is used by couples who are much more "adventerous" in their sexual activtites, and is driven by the popular use of it in heterosexual pornography, whose lewd actions have slowly taken over what was once considered to be normal sexual behaviour in heterosexual couples.
So, the aveage joe woud view sodomy in any realtionship to be perverted and unnatural, hence would act aggresively towards male homosexuals who would use sodomy as a main-or the main - sexual practice.
Personally, I believe sodomy to be quite disguting and degrading.
So, while I apprecaite your wit - and who cannot beneift from a good laugh? - please understand where I am coming from.
Note: If anyone out there does not agree with my conclusions, please feel free to counter them in a rational manner. Besides what some may think, I am always open to discussion.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Personally, I believe sodomy to be quite disguting and degrading.
At least you eventually stated your true stance, and related how you actually feel, instead of remaining hidden behind a wall of generalisation.
So, cunnilingus is ok with you? Therefore, lesbianism is fine, its just that filthy homosexual practise that offends? Ok, now what about fellacio, how does that rate with you? Is that better, or worse, than buggery?
It is interesting to note, that I have met many homosexuals who think heterosexual sex revolting.
I criticise them too, as it is not what happens in the bedroom that is the point, it is what they do outside of it, how they treat their fellow beings, that is actually important.
Concentrating on the sexual act, as a means of justifying homophobia for example, or gays loathing the heterosexual act, really belongs to a more juvenile attitude, such as one would encounter in one's school days.
However, you feel as you feel, I cannot change that and I am not at all interested in trying to do so.
I am more concerned with the hate mongers, who wish to peddle their loathsome sociopathic agendas, involving both emotional and physical violence, than deal with someone who retains a childish outlook regarding homosexuality.
But, that is me. Others may feel differently, and while we remain a (pseudo) democracy, I support your right to express your opinion, but I do not have to agree with it.
fog
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
The only reason I posted a comment is because you seem to be putting science on a pedestal, driving yourself to an objective position with the use of facts.
My points are: a) you're not unbiased b) you should question your sources and c) scientists all carry biases and respond to emotion, just like anyone else.
For everyone else, I point to this (2003) theory that homosexuality may be linked to reproductive success.
One of the big questions is, if homosexuality is genetic, how is it passed on? An interesting paper, published in Elsevier by Colin Dewar.
"An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success"
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Anonymous
As for Ahmed; I believe he is the same religiously bigoted Ahmed I used to clash with on the late WritingUp blogsite a couple of years ago. A really rude character who is most likely a closet gay?
Comment by Anonymous
As for Ahmed; I believe he is the same religiously bigoted Ahmed I used to clash with on the late WritingUp blogsite a couple of years ago. A really rude character who is most likely a closet gay?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
In answer to your question, I do not find oral sex to be suitable either, and speaking from my heterosexual point of view, having a woman go down on a guy is rather misogonystic.
Hi Cibbuano,
Thank you for the link. It was an interesting read. But I still stand by my evaluations.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Regardless of the reason you think heterosexuals engage in oral or anal sex, the fact remains that they do, and the sexual behaviour of the young hetero women i went to high school with would make a gay man blush.
The gay men i know do not all engage in sodomy and those that do dont necessarily do it frequently, some not at all, it is a personal preference and a gay mans way of expressing himself sexually is as varied as a straight woman.
And there are plenty of straight men that i know that enjoy their girlfriends pleasuring them with strap-ons and vibrators and a whole host of anal play.
As a rule of thumb if it disgusts you to think of what someone else does in the bedroom just stop thinking about it so much.
Comment by Anonymous
I am not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.
Also, this is not a subject that I am obsessed with. I just thought it was an essential point to bring up concerning the themes of this post.
So, on that note, I will leave the anal play (and the filthy consequnecs it brings) in your hands.
Have fun kids.
Comment by Matthew Pejkovic
"And there are plenty of straight men that i know that enjoy their girlfriends pleasuring them with strap-ons and vibrators and a whole host of anal play."
I am not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.
Also, this is not a subject that I am obsessed with. I just thought it was an essential point to bring up concerning the themes of this post.
So, on that note, I will leave the anal play (and the filthy consequnecs it brings) in your hands.
Have fun kids.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
That's actually quite hilarious, if for anything, because most people here are probably going to believe I am that person, whoever he is, haha.
This whole blog was started in response to a comment I made (of course taken out of proportion) so I'd imagine the tagline to be 'Padsoc: where everyday is pick on Ahmed day'.
Sometimes I wonder, why do I bother? I mean everyone has something against me, the right wingers call me a faggot and the friggin left wingers call me a homophobe -_- However one thing they both appear to be consistant in doing: accusing me of having repressed homosexual tendencies. Oh god, if only. Haha.
If it makes any of you feel better, I read your comments. I just don't believe there is anything to be gained by me responding to them, sorry.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
I guess there's only one person it could possibly be with a description that specific...
Comment by George W. Bush
That Akmed is the same brave youg man right here fighting the war on terror. No one lies about their identitites on the internets. If they did how would our intelligence organizations keep track of the millions of people who ride the internets waves?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Well Cibbuano, I understand why you would disagree with my line of reasoning except, perhaps in a fit of rage, I did not make my self clear enough, that was not my line of reasoning.
See this whole padsoc thing, and PMCs strange grudge against me, has turned into a sort of rock in my shoes. So it probably has worn my patience thin and maybe I'm not being as clear as I would like.
What I was replying to was PMC saying that it is a good thing to turn a discussion personal. Now the thing is, I have never heard such talk in my life. When people sit down to discuss politics or science or anything you find when they argue on a personal level they lose credit. There is nothing honourable, brave or smart about questioning a persons character in a discussion of science or even politics.
If you look at the current race in the United States, for example, Clinton is the bitch and Obama is the cool guy, if for anything because Obama withheld from using personal attacks unlike Clinton. Now even John McCain is doing the same, not attacking Obama on a personal level.
The issue here is that I find it immensely ignorant for someone to go out and say that arguing on a personal level is a good thing. What I did was point out the obvious, facts are just that, they are testable and provable. You cannot disprove facts by caling a persons character into question and in fact that is especially true of the sciences.
I mean, Isaac Newton, einstein, these fellows were not at all well known until their discoveries came to light. IF their characters had been called into question their discoveries would have been thrown out the window, the backgrounds of both Einstein and Isaac were not at all embedded in the academics and on a reputation level they were both nothing. But their discoveries were real and I don't see how their bias (to religion, to fame, to money, whatever) discredits their fact.
To turn an argument personal is to try and avoid a rational discussion. PMC herself believes there's no such thing as a rational discussion which I find frustratingly off target. I've had MANY rational discussions with people, here on Orble even and also I've had many discussions that have gone no where. If you look at my comments history you will find, all rational discussions avoid getting personal however the integrity of a discussion is not garanteed when you put aside facts to call a persons motivations or character into question, unless of course that is the heart of the discussion.
Which leads me to my final point, is asking a question such as 'Is Homosexuality Natural?' automatically mean I'm homophobic? If so, why? The only reason PMC has provided is that 'love is just natural' therefore questioning it means you have an issue with soething that is just 'natural'. Yet there are many kinds of sexually oriented human behaviours that I'm sure even she would agree is not natural, some people are attracted to having sex with cars, some are with fences, some are with animals, I was reading the other day a woman had married the Berlin Wall (I kid you not). As such the argument that 'love is just natural' cannot hold, it could not be more obvious than it is, love is just an emotion and like all human emotions can be broken.
So what does PMC do to avoid a discussion on the merits of love being natural? She calls my character into question, which to put quite frankly, I find hilarious. As a person who voted for the pro-gay rights student body in university, who supported the continued funding of the gay/lesbian club in that same university, who has consistatnly written and spoken in favour of gay marriage (not just the civil union stuff) and who has probably been the only person on gods green earth who has not made a witty remark about my friend thinking he's bisexual I just dont understand how asking a question pertaining to homosexuality being natural can make someone think I'm homophobic.
After all the accusations of being homophobic and implied accusations that I'm a repressed homosexual I lost control of myself and called her a fool.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Gosh, just skimming through the comments ... I forgot what I wanted to say about this subject... umm I don’t think I am homophobic, because I don't have any different feelings to two men loving each other than I do two women, or a man and a woman doing so (even though I prefer the latter myself ) ... ummm, but (ah yes) I just wanted to make a point about nature and heterosexuality being a means of propagating our species.
Well, at a burgeoning 6 billion I think Mamma Nature is doing fine at nuturing us all, I also think nature is not a mindless brute who doesn’t see the wood for the trees and realising that resources are finite after all, perhaps creates homosexual tendencies in males and females alike, to slow down the pro-creation for a bit, until resources .. well, renew.
When there were no males in my fish pond, someone just became one and a whole new generation was spawned... how smart is that?
We are talking intelligent design here, not human
ignoranceintelligence ... and perhaps a spiritual fact supported by a little science, as new evidence has found that the bridge between the hemispheres of the homosexual brains (left and right) are shorter than the bridge found in the heterosexual brain...Hmmm, food for thought towards the intelligent design debate...
I cannot for the life of me understand why it causes such a knee jerk reaction every time it is mentioned either, simply because a human hand wrote the words ... thout shalt not?
I mean I didn’t miss an 11th commandment, did I?
Surely it comes down to personal preference without guilt and respect for people's choices through tolerence. To think it was once considered mental illness reminds me that we also thought the earth was flat, didn't we?
Lighten-up people, what the hell does it matter if some guy or gal is 'happy,' they will meet their maker, just like you and me ... and Morgan probably has a really valid point btw.
(for what non-sophistication is worth) ... Lilla .
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
I do not find oral sex to be suitable either, and speaking from my heterosexual point of view, having a woman go down on a guy is rather misogonystic.
GEEZ MATE!! WHere have you been? Haven't you heard of a 69er???
Frankly, your answer betrays much! To even think that only the woman would give fellatio, without any consideration that you would give her cunnilingus in return, shows up your general attitude to women methinks!
Sexual pleasure is to be EQUALLY SHARED between the two...
fog
Comment by Johnny Come Lately
Jack's Back
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
If oral sex is not allowed, Im guessing my whips and chains wouldnt be welcome then?
Comment by Anonymous
Is that you, you little homophobe you? It was you on WritingUp, wasn't you bigoted little Egyptian?
What do you think about the oral and anal question? I know it is illegal in Egypt?
AKA Huttriver
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
wow you're paranoid beyond reason. haha, I guess it sort of makes sense, you've brainwashed yourself into that paranoia.
And what is it with the way you're writing? Does it make you feel tough? Haha, saaad.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
However, whatever happened there, I do not think it is called for to be offensive, no matter who one is addressing, be annoyed, sure, demand apologies and/or reprimand whomever that you perceived insulted you, but don't sink down to their gutter level.
I was deeply offended by certain remarks and links to objectionable posts/photo, and I asked for an apology, and got none. So I wrote that person off, as not being worthy of my attention...it is called being 'beneath contempt!'
fog
fog
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Would you kindly change your icon so I can respond to you? I can't even concentrate on your comment, I am so repulsed by this visual. What are you, promoting misandric murders now?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
i think sexual attraction and desire are involutary and are not choices
What came first, sexual nature or sexual nurture? I think they're intextricably interconnected, and that humans are ever-changing.
whats normal anyway?
I like the popular culture saying "Normal is (just) a setting on your microwave/washing machine."
homosexual behaviour may correspond with child sexual abuse, although i doubt it
The amount of heterosexuals that admit to being sexually abused as children discounts this theory.
i like that we continue to study it
So do I; I think that the evidence on which some people say its hereditory could be coincidental, though.
i can understand people in certain circumstances choosing to remain in the closet as homophobic hate crimes really are something to fear
I don't understand why people stay in the closet at all. First of all, it's very unlikely that someone will target you unless you're in a small town or something, where admittedly the risk is higher, even though still unlikely. Second of all, the more happy you are with your sexuality the less people are likely to try and exploit your insecurities. Bullies pick on people who they perceive to be weaker than them, so it's the same with potential abusers. The quicker you make peace with yourself the more protected from your environment you will be. The alternative, staying in the closet, means that you beat everyone else to the abuse because you're too busy doing it yourself.
Life is too short to be afraid. And if you learn how to be the best possible version of yourself it's very unlikely that you will be targeted for hate crimes.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
we have to accept that we learn by questioning and theorising, and that this doesn't mean those of us who try to pull things apart are filled with anything worse than curiousity
Questioning? Darling, take a look at my icon. I take question marks so seriously that I had one spray-painted on my wall, and am now trying to write a book without a single full stop. Questions are sexy?
Everyone is naturally curious. It's when that curiosity is mingled with paranoia (believing homosexuals might be detrimental to human civilisation) that you have a problematic mode of enquiry.
And my hoest feeling is that when we begin labelling things as 'hate' left right and centre, we begin to make the idea of hate itself seem a bit more justified.
I must admit to letting my previous experiences with Ahmed inform the 'hateful' statement. And he seems to be getting more so - take a look at the response he provided based on a 'fit of rage' (his words) above, calling me a fool and the bottom denominator of society. I think it's fear more than hatred that drove his post.
I mean sure, gay people are cool, but you know... they're not elves.
Got Lord of the Rings on your mind, have you? Heh heh. I didn't think of elves at all at any part of writing the post, if that helps.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
As it does with misogyny (link to a post of Ruby's which features examples of misogyny in the Bible and Quran)... My parents aren't even religious but they used rhetoric borrowed from the Bible to shun it when I first started raising the issue.
to raise such a question, is to betray a certain negative attitude towards the topic, or ignorance of it, or, demonstrating that the person is still within the clutches of religious or culturally embeded homophobia.
Very well put.
From the age of four, I can remember knowing this.
Wow, I've only heard of people knowing they were attracted to the same sex at four years old once (or possibly twice?) before! Very impressive.
the now more subtle ways of the bigot and homophobe.
Yeah, just as with sexism and racism people are realising that it's not socially acceptable to be seen as such. I think homophobia is the third in line... it still has a long way to go before it catches up to being as unacceptable as those two.
One of the reasons I wrote this post is because there is a lot of homophobic sentiment that goes around that isn't even recognised as such. Just a few months ago I met yet another person who used the phrase "that's so gay" in a derogatory way, to use a glaringly obvious example.
there is a lot of evidence that points to homosexuals enriching cultures of all kinds
Hear, hear!
The first step towards solving a problem, is admitting you have a problem in the first place....
I think Ahmed needs to realise that if he admits to having a problem he will find himself in a much more peaceful state of mind. If you are willing to admit that you've been wrong, why, well then you can actually reach out to people and make entirely new beginnings in life.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I know, huh? I was expecting some replies, (mostly from Ahmed,) but not quite anything on this scale!
i think defining charactter by your undergraduate degree is somewhat limiting.
Just somewhat?
Ahmed, please widen you horizons or you are doomed to being trapped within binarys- an existence that is limited in the most profound sense.
Thanks for your words... when I first came across Ahmed, his icon was a red cube with thick black outlines and thick black spectacles. The image he selected said a lot about his state of mind: boxed in on all sides with thick barriers, and full of fiery hate for self and other. I'm not even going to go into the image he has now - simply repulsive.
PMC thank you for sparking a much needed debate.
Thank you for your comment here, I really appreciate it!
the minute we consder the natual illusion of the abnormality of homosexuality is the minute our society and civilisation dies.
That's an interesting way to think about it because people have traditionally thought that, and now we are starting to think about it as just another form of the complexity that is human behaviour.
your past denominators and such distinctions and im sure those who do not see such discussion as being beyond measures and stats are death in their own right.
I must confess I can't make sense of this sentence... perhaps have another go?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Why, oh why are there so many representations of beheading in this post? I can appreciate being pissed off at Ahmed, if that's what you were getting at, but that is NOT a productive way to express your frustration.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Bigoted little Egyptian? What's wrong with that sentence?
Actually I think Ahmed is from Iraq, but you know, what's the difference. A little Arab is just a little Arab.
Bigoted little Egyptian.
Honestly, I'm going to put together a little post on my favourite unintentionally ironic Orble statements. This is definitely in the top five.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Jeeze don't tell him that! I was enjoying the paranoia -_-
I just thought it was hilarious but hey, I'm also not one to judge someone by their display pic either but I suppose I shouldn't except that courtesy to extend to other people?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Thanks for your words... when I first came across Ahmed, his icon was a red cube with thick black outlines and thick black spectacles. The image he selected said a lot about his state of mind: boxed in on all sides with thick barriers, and full of fiery hate for self and other. I'm not even going to go into the image he has now - simply repulsive.
PMC, you have yet to respond to anything I've said from a factual and statistical standpoint and instead have resorted to both passive and direct personal attacks thusfar. I think I've managed to understand your hysteria and can tolerate it now, so don't expect to provoke a response out of me by going about making such silly and offhanded comments anymore
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
No, it's because I enjoy watching you blow your top like that. Good to know old people sitll have enough energy to act like young retards
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Is no comment a comment? ^_^
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
Seriously, though, I think a lot of what has been talked about here isn't homophobia at all - homophobia is the irrational FEAR of homosexuals/homosexuality. The kind that makes some men lash out with violence because another guy winks at them in the street, for example.
That fear is usually, at it's root, a fear that they themselves might be, at least in part, homosexual.
Men with better self control lash out verbally, even if they do so in a slightly indirect fashions, "I'm not anti-gay but the things you do in bed are disgusting", which is tantamount to telling me I'm disgusting - and still a homophobic attack.
The natural/unnatural argument is over, as far as science is concerned. Homosexual activities, even long term pair bonding, have been shown to happen in many species.
A recent study explained very convincingly why male homosexuality is genetic and I wrote about it here., so that argument looks like it's over, too.
Homosexuality has always been around, and always will be.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
As for Ahmed... someone who thinks rape is funny and best represented in porn movies (see Deepp Pencil), is just not very funny at all, no matter what he is?
I don't find it funny, that was a satirical remark, asking for a 'tasteful' rape scene indeed.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
First of all, I missed responding to the first Anonymous, so here goes:
>Please do not take offense, but I think that instead of accusing your friend of being a homophobe, you should ask him WHY he is telling you this.
First of all, he was not my friend. Secondly, I could already tell why he was telling me this. I didn't want to know about his homophobia in any greater detail.
Being philosophy major, I have heard this argument and think that it has its validities. It is not a homophobic one, though it understandably seems as if it is.
In that case I think you are a homophobe as well. There are ways of inquiring about the phenomenon of homosexuality that are not offensive to me, but this one is. If you really feel you have something to offer I am overlooking, I encourage you to elaborate on your stance.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Again, taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my point of view
Since you didn't specify what I am supposed to be taking out of context and misrepresenting, I have no idea what you're referring to. If you're going to say something like that you'd better tell me *what* you think I'm misrepresenting, otherwise it just comes off as an empty accusation about nothing in particular.
they'd have your head if
You're a nasty piece of work, aren't you? I don't believe anyone is out to get me (responding to another comment of yours) —except maybe you, with your virulent hostility and your abundant lack of inner peace.
You lack a basic understanding of what science is, which is essentially a pursuit for the absoloute truth.
It's absolute. If you're going to be pursuing something, you might as well spell it right.
Actually it's you that lacks an understanding of what postmodern critique is about. It's precisely because I understand the idea that reality is supposed to be objective that I am deconstructing it. Get an education, Ahmed.
You do not even understand what a rational discusion is and yet you're trying to have one with me? Are you just trying to make yourself sound smart?
Who said I was trying to have a rational discussion with anyone? Don't degrade me by comparing my modes of enquiry to 'rational' thought processes, thank you very much. Now why would I attempt to sound smart when I am already brilliant?
because an inherint bias exists in all of us does not mean we should, like you, embrace it.
It's inherent.
You might as well work with it instead of trying to get away from it, which is impossible. Aligning mind and emotion is the best way to operate, whether you are a scientist, artist or other.
only those who are too caught up indulging themselves in their own ego would do so
There's nothing indulgent about working with your emotions. In fact this 'indulgence' is the only feasible means of conducting any kind of intellectual theory. Otherwise your work reflects the internal suffering you are going through. It's not like you can separate yourself from your emotions. Only those who lack the confidence to trust that their emotions will lead them to greatness and complement their integrity of mind hide behind 'Objectivity' like it's a religion. Oh yes, there are many of you. This makes it a permissible social disorder. You believe that you can only have a valid contribution if you distrust your 'pitiful' emotions and dogmatically pursue Objectivity, but that just speaks of your low self-esteem and lack of original thinking.
I'm sorry that you're so disempowered and I wish I could help you, but I doubt you would accept it.
Why are things the way they are? That is what I'm trying to find out. If that is homophobic
It's your choice of words: Is homosexuality natural? You're not asking 'Is there a gay gene, and if so, what does this mean?' or one of the many questions you could have asked about homosexuality that would indicate that you had respect for it, you're attacking its integrity. You're asking if everyday people who just happen to be emotionally and/or sexually attracted to the same sex are not biological errors. It's not difficult to deduce that you treat homosexuality with great suspicion as a result, and from your panphobic comment and other posts such as the one on Little Green Foosballs where you go on and on about 'evil gay gnomes which make baby Jesus cry' or some such sacrilege (and I use this ironically because I'm not religious). But I'm sure you have an explanation why that isn't homophobic either. 'God' forbid that Ahmed be homophobic, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I'm not going into just how dangerously wrong what you are saying is except to say that if that is how science worked we'd still be under the notion the earth is 6000 years old.
That's crap, but if it were up to you we would have no arts or humanities, where ambiguity is often acknowledged and respected. And there would be no science, either, because science is not about black-and-white. It's about experimentation and discovery, and a good scientist needs to have an open mind and be open to new possibilities at all times.
My only bias is my bias to learn about the world, I have no other biases.
You are one of the most unbecomingly biased people I know. And you're suffering more than you realise.
Since you haven't figured it out yet, what is happening is that you're too scared to ask what you really want to know, which is 'why am I so scared of homosexuals?' so you resort to something you think is more socially acceptable, trying to justify your homophobia. Hiding behind the illusion of objectivity isn't going to work, though.
And I'm very sorry that you have to actively suppress your desire to make a wise-ass comment to your friend who thinks he's bisexual. Gee, he must really like having such a supporting and non-judgmental friend. Just because there are other people like you doesn't justify your behaviour in the slightest.
I'm not trying to impress you, perhaps you are being impressed by me?
Now that's a laugh! I'm impressed that you're so prejudiced, antagonistic and dislikable, sure!
oh and again, I'm not gay
It's funny, I never said you were gay. Yet you tell me "again" that you're not, which everybody knows is a dead give-away that you're hiding something. Hey, best of luck with whatever - it's none of my business!
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
First of all, 'sodomy' has a term with negative (and Biblical) connotations, and is not one I use. I think you'll find that the more neutral 'anal sex' is the best way to go.
If there is to be debate about what drives hetereosexuals to react aggresively towards homosexuals (males especially), then the differences between our sexual behaviour surely must be a main catalyst.
First of all, there is no excuse for a human being to react aggressively towards another.
Now, a quote from Wikipedia's article on 'anal sex', which I found very informative and recommend to everyone:
According to a 2004 report, "Some research suggests that one in four heterosexuals in the US has tried anal sex and for one in 12, it is an occasional or episodic practice. Other surveys suggest that seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse, a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population."
I don't find anal sex disgusting or degrading. I don't think it would be pleasurable for me except for in extraordinary cirumstances, which is why I haven't engaged in it, but are you aware that the prostate gland can be stimulated by anal sex in a way that it can't any other way? This can lead to a strong feeling of pleasure and orgasm.
Anal sex, like vaginal sex, needs to be performed consensually and sensitively in order to be pleasurable (and with lots of lubrication).
I do not find oral sex to be suitable either, and speaking from my heterosexual point of view, having a woman go down on a guy is rather misogonystic.
Why?
I don't see anything misogynistic about oral sex at all, unless the woman is doing it without wanting to at the request of the man. Oral sex can be (and often is) a loving, mutually pleasurable act. It's even more popular than anal sex, and with good reason: it can't make you pregnant, pass on certain STDs, and can be very pleasurable. In fact I know people who prefer it to vaginal or anal intercourse.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
No one can possibly have more against you than you do, Ahmed.
Now what's the deal with this 'if only' business? Just another tacked-on comment trying to distract from your obvious homophobia?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Having sex with cars, fences or animals (or all three at the same time) are just fetishes, there's nothing unnatural about that if you ask me. If you like doing that, good for you. As long as you're having fun and not hurting anybody, it's better than having no sex at all, right (although Morgan might disagree
I think a woman marrying the Berlin wall is funny, but I celebrate her right to do it. It's not unnatural either.
Ahmed, you think having an avatar of a cartoonish representation of a woman removing a man's head, with blood spurting out, is funny. Who are you to invent objective standards for what's natural?
As a person who voted for the pro-gay rights student body in university, who supported the continued funding of the gay/lesbian club in that same university, who has consistatnly written and spoken in favour of gay marriage (not just the civil union stuff) and who has probably been the only person on gods green earth who has not made a witty remark about my friend thinking he's bisexual I just don't understand how asking a question pertaining to homosexuality being natural can make someone think I'm homophobic.
You can do all that and still be homophobic. Believe me, I would like to be convinced of the opposite, but I've already explained why I think you are homophobic.
You say you are naturally curious. I don't doubt that you are interested in reading all the information you can find on this topic, but you have the kind of limited knowledge of homosexuality that most homophobes do.
For example, going back to the Batman Begins example. Anyone with even a casual interest in movies would have done some research on the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture in 2005. It would not have taken a lot of research to find out that there was not a lot of 'gayness' in Brokeback Mountain. Apart from one explicit scene that earned it its R rating, the sexuality was actually very mild. This meant that Heath Ledger's job was to portray the loneliness, self-loathing and sense of being at odds with the world that his character felt. The point of the film was that the main couple spent very little together, and most of their time struggling to deal with the consequences of finding themselves attracted to another man. Heath Ledger's performance was so renowned because he created a character who was 'sensitive to bright lights', uninterested in pronouncing his words clearly, and just generally extremely conflicted all of the time. It was one of the most celebrated performances of the year because it was so nuanced, complex. The character was also meant to be homophobic, which is actually not difficult for most straight guys to act, unfortunately.
I'm assuming that you didn't know any of this. But it's just like a simplistic, homophobic person to go 'oh my god, some guy that got acclaim for playing gay is now going to gay up every role he takes on'. Wtf? Are you that narrow-minded? It's like you can't dissociate him from the undesirable gay image. Real intelligent.
After all the accusations of being homophobic and implied accusations that I'm a repressed homosexual I lost control of myself
Very mature... If you let other people have control over you you are really doing yourself a disservice. Like I said, I never said you were gay, but what would be so wrong if I did? Is that something to get angry about, 'lose control' over, hmmm?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Lilla, I would have thought that a person with your attention to sensitivity and meticulousness would go to troubles to avoid such sentence structures. You realise that you are informing us to the possibility that you may be homophobic? Isn't it worth something to you to be confident that you are not? To eradicate every last drop of cultural conditioning, to question all the hesitation people feel about supporting gays and lesbians as equal?
If I were you I would ask myself why you are not fully convinced that you aren't homophobic. There's a difference between not minding homosexuality and celebrating it as a valid lifestyle choice that can offer you inspiration, in the sense that people are looking beyond gender to connect with each other, which affirms the concept of 'true love' or something like that.
Thanks for commenting.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
To even think that only the woman would give fellatio, without any consideration that you would give her cunnilingus in return, shows up your general attitude to women methinks!
My understanding of Matthew's attitude to oral sex is that he doesn't like it whether it involves cunnilingus or fellatio, adding that fellatio by a woman reinforces the idea that a woman is inferior to a man. I think he is just turned off by it in general.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Instead of accusations of homophobia to someone who was obviously trying hard to say he had no problem with homosexuals,
Yes, he was trying hard to make himself sound free of prejudices, trying to fool both himself and everyone else around him, because he is that self-conscious. He wasn't making an effort to learn more about me or homosexuality (and I wouldn't expect him to since he managed to have a relationship with a bisexual without overcoming his prejudices towards homosexuality), he just didn't want to be seen as homophobic.
did it cross your mind that he was trying to learn something and probably has years of thinking one particular way and wasn't trying to be offensive?
It crosses my mind that you are being accusatory for no real reason. If I thought he was trying to learn something I would have tried a different approach, but that wasn't the case. Besides, whether he thought he was being offensive or not doesn't matter, because I saw him as such. It is not my responsibility to be his personal self-help guru either.
You were the being the intolerant one.
You know what I think? I think you distrust my authority because I am 'different' to most people you know. Perhaps you can't handle the level at which I am working and wish to disclaim my writing. Either way, I don't like your attitude.
I think that man was making a genuine attempt to change his way of thinking.
I would have liked for that to be the case, and if I had found that it was, I would have encouraged him. Seeing as I was there, and am very likely to be more sensitive to these matters than you, having a lot of experience in dealing with attitudes to homosexuality, I suggest you think twice about accusing me as you have.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Why take such note of people who aren't likely to support your lifestyle choices? I find the best thing to do with people whose minds are not likely to change anytime soon is to do what I can to help, and then leave them alone, and focus on people who are more openminded.
Im still trying to figure out exactly what goes on in his bedroom....
Isn't this a bit aggressive? Matthew only needs to share as much as he wants to about anything. I'm also one of those people who doesn't like talking about my sexlife much, because I see it as private.
Anyway, thanks for your comment!
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
you bigoted little Egyptian?
It may be that you're using 'Egyptian' as a way of identifying 'Ahmed', but it does sound like an insult because you've associated other negative things with him. I would pay more attention to what you say and how you say it in the future, and since you're the only one who knows the way in which you intended 'Egyptian' to come off, I hope you enjoy people regardless of the nation they come from and are not anti-Arabic/anti-Muslim/racis t/xenophobic/whatever.
Have a good day.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
You've made a lot of interesting points which I will try to respond to in due time, some of which are a bit "off-topic", but for now I'll just say:
I suppose the real test would be to put yourself in an establishment that caters to homosexuals and see how comfortable you are.
I bet Ahmed isn't comfortable in the company of anybody, let alone a gay joint! To me, his homophobia is very clear.