The "homophobic" lie

[Tiassa]

Reactionary degrees

Do I disagree with this? Of course not. But there's something a bit more visceral about considering gay sex vs eating squid also.

I think you've touched on something fairly important. This is what I don't get about it, though:

I understand that some men consider the thought of having a penis in their butt a bit unsettling at least. But think about the visceral reaction. Maybe someone will scream and yelp and slap at the earthworm held in front of them. But no matter how visceral that reaction is, they're not going to go on a decade-long eradication campaign against earthworms and people who don't hate earthworms.​

Many homophobes try to point out that not everyone likes the idea of having sex that way. And that's fine. Where the whole homophobia argument comes up is when it goes beyond what someone would or would not enjoy.

Not wanting to have gay sex does not make one homophobic. Are we all clear on this?

Trying to deny that homosexuals are human, or trying to force the law to pretend they don't exist, or trying to force the law to persecute them ... now these things are homophobic.

And the question arises: If one finds homosexuality so difficult to think about, why do they spend so much time thinking about it?

And the answer had better be something better than, "Because I don't like a homosexual man looking at me the way I look at a woman." If it's creepy, it's creepy. If the fact of a man looking at a woman changes that creepiness, then there's also an issue of misogyny that has to be addressed before the homophobic issue can be resolved.

 

[superluminal]

I understand that some men consider the thought of having a penis in their butt is a bit unsettling at least. But think about the visceral reaction. Maybe someone will scream and yelp and slap at the earthworm held in front of them. But no matter how visceral that reaction is, they're not going to go on a decade-long eradication campaign against earthworms and people who don't hate earthworms.​

Right.

Many homophobes try to point out that not everyone likes the idea of having sex that way. And that's fine. Where the whole homophobia argument comes up is when it goes beyond what someone would or would not enjoy.

Yep.

Not wanting to have gay sex does not make one homophobic. Are we all clear on this?

Absolutely.

Trying to deny that homosexuals are human, or trying to force the law to pretend they don't exist, or trying to force the law to persecute them ... now these things are homophobic.

Yep.

And the question arises: If one finds homosexuality so difficult to think about, why do they spend so much time thinking about it?

Good question. Probably the same reason that arachnophobes obsess on spiders and how to avoid them. Or why agoraphobes obsess on the outdoors and how to avoid it. Or how acrophobes obsess on high places and how to avoid them.

Phobias are, by definition, pathological conditions that require treatment. They are not normal. The posessors of these phobis can't stop thinking about them, even though they are terrified by them. Could this go some way to explaining the extreme behavior of some people concerinig gays?

Obviously, much of this is societally conditioned. No mainstream religion goes out of it's way to embrace homosexuality. Xianity damn's the practice outright, and what country do we live in? The US of Xianity.

And the answer had better be something better than...,

Was that better?

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Was that better?

Um ... sure.

Phobias are, by definition, pathological conditions that require treatment. They are not normal. The posessors of these phobis can't stop thinking about them, even though they are terrified by them. Could this go some way to explaining the extreme behavior of some people concerinig gays?

It could. Probably does. But it's one of those ironies of "political correctness" that we don't talk about that. Recently, for instance, a topic came up about psychological tests suggesting that liberals could circumstantially deviate more easily from conditioned patterns. Part of the conservative response was to get paranoid. Someone made the point that the idea reeked of eugenics. That the topic itself smacked of politics is beyond doubt, but the idea that the experiment "smacks of eugenics", or "implies intellectual dysfunction on the part of conservatives" is a bit silly.

The last thing anyone is allowed to suggest is that "mainstream" American morals need psychotherapy.

The US of Xianity.

Ever heard the Christian Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.​

Creepy, eh? Salon.com political editor gave a talk in Seattle last April in support of her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. The appearance was covered and broadcast by KUOW Speaker's Forum. It's a fascinating reading. Starting at 15:35, she reads from a portion of her book about a conference called "Reclaiming America for Christ":

I'm going to skip ahead to this part about a conference that's held every year in D. James Kennedy's church in Fort Lauderdale, which is called--well, he has something called the Center for Reclaiming America, and then he has a large church called Coral Ridge Ministries, and he's actually the third most-watched televangelist in the country. He's a little bit less-known than some of the others, but he's been very, very politically active. He has an office in D.C. that exists just to evangelize young Hill staffers, and they frequently bring in high-ranking Republicans, and have these prayer luncheons.

At the latest conference, he had Mike Huckabee, who's one of the Republican candidates for [president]. But this is a couple years ago, so:

Every year, for the past twelve years, D. James Kennedy has hosted the Reclaiming America for Christ conference, usually at his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale. The event brings together hundreds of committed Christian nationalists for two days of lectures, seminars, and devotions that, as the 2001 conference website puts it, "chart the path for believers to take back the land in America". Speakers have included Roy Moore, David Barton, and Rick Scarborough, as well as the occasional GOP operative like Clinton prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Former Vice-President Dan Quayle delivered a speech in the first Reclaiming America for Christ Conference in 1994. In his book, Eternal Hostility, Frederick Clarkson described the scene:

Quayle's speech was unremarkable, except for his presence during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--to the Christian flag--which preceded his remarks. The Christian flag, white with a gold cross on a blue field in the upper-left corner, flies outside Kennedy headquarters. The assemblage recited together: I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe.​

For all who believe. Reclaiming America for Christ is a place where the Christian nationalist movement drops its democratic pretenses and indulges its theocratic dreams.

So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn't have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy. She could be frank about the real reasons society must not condone premarital sex. "Because it is," as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, "Stinking filthy dirty rotten sin!" A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex. Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex. As she says in her video, No Screwing Around, "If you have sex outside of marriage, to a partner who has only been with you, then you will pay." A big part of her mission is puncturing students' beliefs that condoms can protect them. She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video. Thanks to George W. Bush, abstinence education has become a thriving industry, and Stenzel has been at its forefront. Bush appointed her to a twelve-person task force at the Department of Health and Human Services to help implement abstinence education guidelines. She's been a guest at the White House and a speaker at the United Nations. Her non-profit company, Enlightenment Communications, which puts on abstinence talks and seminars in public schools, typically grossed several hundred thousand dollars a year during the first Bush term.

At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate, a question she regarded as risible.

"What he's asking," she said, "is 'does it work?' You know what? Doesn't matter. 'Cause guess what? My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public school's job should not be to keep teens from having sex."

Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!" And I should say that up 'til then, I agreed with her. But here's what she means by the truth:

"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.

"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"

The crowd applauded. Of course, Stenzel isn't just teaching her child.​

(KUOW.org)

Okay, okay. So I got carried away. I had planned to stop after the Dan Quayle bit, but the segment does give us some insight to the conservative Christian movement that holds this country hostage. Anyway, I think I got the divisions right.

Um ... yeah. Two cents about the Christian nation.

(There's a great bit in there about conservatives asking God to send the Schiavo-case judge to Hell, as well a vague threat to kill Justice Kennedy.)

 

[Meursalt]

I think you've touched on something fairly important. This is what I don't get about it, though:

I understand that some men consider the thought of having a penis in their butt a bit unsettling at least. But think about the visceral reaction. Maybe someone will scream and yelp and slap at the earthworm held in front of them. But no matter how visceral that reaction is, they're not going to go on a decade-long eradication campaign against earthworms and people who don't hate earthworms.​

Many homophobes try to point out that not everyone likes the idea of having sex that way. And that's fine. Where the whole homophobia argument comes up is when it goes beyond what someone would or would not enjoy.

Not wanting to have gay sex does not make one homophobic. Are we all clear on this?

Trying to deny that homosexuals are human, or trying to force the law to pretend they don't exist, or trying to force the law to persecute them ... now these things are homophobic.

And the question arises: If one finds homosexuality so difficult to think about, why do they spend so much time thinking about it?

And the answer had better be something better than, "Because I don't like a homosexual man looking at me the way I look at a woman." If it's creepy, it's creepy. If the fact of a man looking at a woman changes that creepiness, then there's also an issue of misogyny that has to be addressed before the homophobic issue can be resolved.

That was probably the most telling post in this thread. Admittedly. I skipped from page 1 to page 15 for... what I would hope to be obvious reasons. I may have missed something good in them meantime, but such is life under the influence of Jade (and where did that come from?).

The only telling fact is that talking a good hard shit is eminently pleasurable. Translating that to being buttfucked, though, requires a major shift in viewpoint.

Google "ass porn". The only barrier, sociologically speaking, is.... dammit. Sociological.

Barriers. They are in the mind.
Tiassa, no doubt, has already entertained the possibility that he isn't gay at all.
Perhaps he has also entertained the possibility that there is no "gay".

 

[Tiassa]

And, yes, I swallow

Tiassa, no doubt, has already entertained the possibility that he isn't gay at all.
Perhaps he has also entertained the possibility that there is no "gay".

I refuse to answer the first proposition insofar as I will identify myself as gay should I ever get around to trying to build a lasting relationship with another man. In other words, if I date a guy, I'll finally make the point of coming out of the closet to the last people I know who aren't already aware that I enjoy a good cock.

As to the second, the general social discourse about homosexuality has not matured to such a level. Attempting to explain that point to most people would only confuse them. To the other, we also might mean different things by it.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

I just generally don't understand why people care so much for what others do with their genitals, and love so long as it doesn't harm anyone, and is consensual...I mean, okay, you don't have to find it cool, or attractive, or anything like that, but meddling with other people's sexual desires is just taking a step too far, no? But people seemingly have a tendency to fear, or demonise anything that goes against their society's norm, or what is unknown, or new to them.

Best would be if all would be attracted to one another regardless of gender(I think the term for this would be pansexual, or omnisexual..not sure), because I'm persuaded that everyone has both in them. (yin & yang)

Okay, I just wrote a load of bull. :facepalm:

 

[Alien Cockroach]

One of the things that strikes me about this brand of homophobia is its self-centered origin. After all, the solution so many propose in response to female soldiers who want to sleep without being violated by a man is that they shouldn't be in the service. In the end, such homophobia may well be a petulant extension of a broadly-seeded male sexual fantasy. Men want to be propositioned, want easy access to sex, but from women. So they project their own sexual aggression onto other men, which makes the homosexual all the more frightening, because the frightened het-man is imagining that the gay is as sexually aggressive, nondiscriminating, and indifferent to proper human respect as the het-man believes himself to be.

Believe it or not, gay men do have the same exact impulses. It's not sexual "aggression," though. We just have really powerful sex drives, and a powerful, overactive sex drive makes it really really hard to think straight. There is a specific reason that otherwise intelligent men can act really retarded around attractive women. In a way, being around an attractive woman literally turns down the lights in their frontal lobes enough that, for a while, they effectively are mentally retarded, even if they are geniuses otherwise. When men are feeling really really attracted to someone, they aren't feeling aggressive. No, no, no. They are actually feeling kind of high.

In the end, the paranoid hets are all imagining that gay men will be as ridiculous and annoying as the hets themselves, and in the hets' minds, everyone already knows that you're only supposed to treat women like that.

It kind of reminds me of women who suffer from the paranoid belief that every man who gives them a passing glance secretly desires to rape them. How arrogant can you get? Speaking as someone who has seen this from all angles, I find that kind of attitude to be really fucking offensive. I'd like to tell those kinds of people, "Little you isn't the only human being on the planet who was born with any morals. Even if I were having sexual fantasies about you, I wouldn't act on them because that would be fucking discourteous and immoral. I'm not one of those people who kiss on the first date or peep into people's windows."

 

[swarm]

Believe it or not, gay men do have the same exact impulses. It's not sexual "aggression," though. We just have really powerful sex drives, and a powerful, overactive sex drive makes it really really hard to think straight.

Tiassa would be one of those "gay men" last I heard.

I think it is going to be difficult to draw good conclusions from any clump of humans as diverse as straight, gay or bi men. Human sexual habits are both extrordinarially complex and diverse. There might be trends, aka stereotypes, but the overlap is going to render those little more than fodder for sitcoms.

When men are feeling really really attracted to someone, they aren't feeling aggressive. No, no, no. They are actually feeling kind of high.

It really depends on the man and the situation. If its a dominant man and there are other dominant men then there is going to be aggression until the pecking order is straightened out and the female/non dom gay man shows acceptance of the courting advances and selection of a single suitor.

The less dominant male the crowd, the less overt agreesion, but it may instead manifest as passive aggresion as long as there is doubt about the pairings. Few things are more fun than watching geeks sniping at each other when an unattached woman has been introduced to the environment. It reminds me of gazel doing their thing.

Only when pair bonds are set and there isn't a need to thrash out dominance can you relax and enjoy.

I'd like to tell those kinds of people, "Little you isn't the only human being on the planet who was born with any morals..."

OK, that is sooo gay.