Those Astonishing Heteros

[Tiassa]

Those Astonishing Heteros
Because it's just not fair to leave them out

Equal time. Political correctness. Quotas. Bull—

Anyway, why leave out the heterosexuals? As the war of the sexual orientations drags (heh!) on, we should not let our focus on the ins and outs of being gay diminish the contributions of our heterosexual neighbors. Thus, without ado, let us turn our scrutiny to those nifty hets, always remembering that hey, we're only trying to be fair here.

(This is a companion thread for, "The Gay Fray".)

 

[Tiassa]

At least they're not gay ....

Source: Salon.com
Link: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LFJ0O0_children_slain/index.html
Title: "NY man who killed his 2 kids gets life in prison", by Associated Press
Date: November 24, 2008

Hetero love: is there anything more pure, more just, more American? Is there any finer statement of our shared societal values than the image of the traditional heterosexual family?

A former New York City corrections officer has been sentenced to life in prison for killing his two children -- one of them a toddler who was in her high chair when she was shot.

A jury convicted Everett George of murder and sentenced him Monday. Jurors rejected his claim that he was suffering extreme emotional distress and did not understand his actions were wrong.

Prosecutor Maxine Rosenthal said George killed his 1-year-old daughter and her 12-year-old brother on Nov. 24, 2004, to punish their mother for seeing another man.

(Associated Press)

Indeed, we might be tempted to think that Americans have grown beyond the days when a single, shocking news report should define an entire class of people, but it's 2008, people; it's the twenty-first century, and if you're not with it, you're just not with it.

Ah, hets. Why ever should we expect you to figure out your own damn families before lecturing other people on theirs?

Good luck with that.

Oh, yeah, and he sure showed her, huh?

 

[Tiassa]

All hands on the big one?

David Schmader, of The Stranger's "Last Days", brings us this early-week update via Slog:

This Saturday, November 22, around 2pm, I was at the bus stop across the street from Broadway Market. I'm looking down Broadway to spot the bus and instead see an early 30-something woman with her hand in a late 30-something man's fly. He's in black shorts and has really tan legs and greasy hair. He might've been high. She has a big poufy winter coat and does not appear high in any way. She has a white plastic bag tied around that same wrist, resulting in the bag swinging like a pendulum while she gives him the most public handjob in the history of the world ....

.... I thought the only public handjobs on Broadway were supposed to be gay. The neighborhood sure is changing.

(Slog)

Changing, indeed. And not just the neighborhood. To judge by the last several years' worth of rhetoric, one might be tempted to believe that heteros don't actually give one another public hand jobs. You know, since it's only the gays who are flaunting their sexuality in public, or whatever.

This must be a new development among hets. Absolutely unheard of, you know?
____________________

Notes:

Schmader, David. "On Broadway". Slog. November 24, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/24/on_broadway

 

[nietzschefan]

Tiassa, you sure are one fucked up little twink...

 

[Asguard]

to the first its sad that some people develop so narsasiticly that they would kill there children for selfish gain but it happens time and again. Of course this is the same personality type as the gay guy who had AIDS and delibratly went around trying to infect as many people as possable in australia. Nassistic personality disorder is no more plesant than sociopathic personality disorder

As for the second YAY!!!! its time sex stopped being such a dirty word. Sex is a much better past time than war is and i would much rather see more headlines like your second one than your first

 

[Asguard]

By the way, im a little confused by your poll, care to explain it?

 

[swarm]

So if you were trying for something here other than making yourself look stupid while alienating your friends, I'd say you failed.

 

[John99]

What a shameless display of tunnel vision.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

By the way, im a little confused by your poll, care to explain it?

Like me, you'd probably fall under the "Other" category. We are, of course, in the heterosupremacist world, not important.

• • •​

So if you were trying for something here other than making yourself look stupid while alienating your friends, I'd say you failed.

Well, my friends aren't generally alienated by my efforts to be fair. Some of them just chuckle, pass me the pipe, and remind me that I might as well save my breath, since those who most need to understand the point either can't or won't.

Some of them. Not all. I do have some friends who don't smoke dope. In that case, they just chuckle, hand me a beer, and remind me that I might as well save my breath, since those who most need to understand the point either can't or won't.

• • •​

What a shameless display of tunnel vision.

What's the matter, John? Don't think people should be treated the way the gays are treated? Should we not apply the same scrutiny?

Don't get me wrong: If the heterosupremacists want to admit they're full of shit, call off their voyeuristic inquisition, and resolve to find more constructive ways to get their rocks off in the future, I'll drop it right now.

In the meantime, since marriage itself is apparently at stake in deciding whose spouse gets to be a spouse, let's examine that stake a little closer. What is het marriage? What does it actually value? What happens if we generalize about hets the way we do about gays?

So, you tell me: What's wrong with looking at hets according to the same standards they inflict on gays?


Don't be afraid, John. Contribute.

 

[Cellar_Door]

I don't see why someone is 'heterosupremacist' for not wanting gay pride thrown in their faces. Moreover, you can't compare how a minority is treated to how the majority treats itself - it's illogical.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

I don't see why someone is 'heterosupremacist' for not wanting gay pride thrown in their faces.

I don't see how civil rights is a matter of throwing pride in anyone's faces.

Moreover, you can't compare how a minority is treated to how the majority treats itself - it's illogical.

Consistency is illogical? Imagine that.

• • •​

Interesting, Tiassa. Basically your thread is intended to poke fun at, and denigrate, a large portion of the world's population. And you call it to "contribute"?

Ah, so are you saying that treating people the way gays are treated is denigrating?

 

[Baron Max]

I don't see how civil rights is a matter of throwing pride in anyone's faces.

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Seems perfectly equal to me! See? Gays want special rights ...above and beyond that afforded other males. (Ditto for females)

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

You seem to be stuck in hypocrisy, Max

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Seems perfectly equal to me! See? Gays want special rights ...above and beyond that afforded other males. (Ditto for females)

Marriage is not solely invested in the sex of the spouse. Ironically, it was traditionalists of the twentieth century who lamented the triumph of love over utility. Invoking a sexist standard to justify sexism doesn't really work that well, Max.

All gay people want is the same right as heterosexuals: to marry someone they love.

 

[Cellar_Door]

I don't see how civil rights is a matter of throwing pride in anyone's faces.

Many straight people find the idea of gay pairings and gay sex an uncomfortable topic - simple as that. Why are they not allowed to feel this way, and why must the majority be constantly treading on eggshells to avoid causing offence to a minority? Equally, I don't think that most people are against consenting adults doing pretty much what they like in their own homes - but gay pride parades, gay sex all over programmes like Hollyoaks or films like Brokeback Mountain?

Moreover, you can't compare how a minority is treated to how the majority treats itself - it's illogical.

Consistency is illogical? Imagine that.

In what way is consistency lacking?

 

[Tiassa]

A few points I had thought were obvious; thank you for correcting me

Many straight people find the idea of gay pairings and gay sex an uncomfortable topic - simple as that.

Ah. Yes. Civil rights are all about pride, aren't they?

Why are they not allowed to feel this way, and why must the majority be constantly treading on eggshells to avoid causing offence to a minority?

You're mixing issues of a sort.

Why are they not allowed to feel this way? Who says they're not?

Why must the majority be constantly treading on eggshells to avoid causing offense to a minority? Who says they do?

Many people, including many straight people, don't equate decency to walking on eggshells. Fuck, have you looked around and seen how easy it is to offend the majority? Simply existing is often sufficient.

Equally, I don't think that most people are against consenting adults doing pretty much what they like in their own homes - but gay pride parades, gay sex all over programmes like Hollyoaks or films like Brokeback Mountain?

Well, think of it this way: I don't see all that many black power or black pride parades anymore. As a subgroup normalizes, the expression of pride as a counterpoint to oppression diminishes.

British soap operas? Hell, dude, I think the American celebration of lying, scheming, hateful, vengeful heterosexuals is pretty stupid fare, too. Thing is, there's an audience out there somewhere. Take it up with people who watch shitty television.

Or are you complaining that shitty television includes homosexuals? You know, as if having cheap hetero-sex all over televisions is any better?

And, of course, you too can do what I do: I do not watch soap operas.

And as to Brokeback Mountain? Who the hell forced you to go see it? I mean, Baby Mama shouldn't have been made. Easy solution: Don't go see the fucking movie. Something unfortunate, like the time my brother and I suffered through Patch Adams against our better sensibilities? Yeah, well, if I really have a problem with that, I can take it up with my mother.

In what way is consistency lacking?

Your assertion—

"... you can't compare how a minority is treated to how the majority treats itself - it's illogical."​

—seems to make quite clearly the point that it is somehow unfair or improper to compare a social group's treatment of a minority against its own standards of decency.

I reject that proposition, as it advocates hypocrisy. Think about it in functional terms.

 

[Baron Max]

Ah. Yes. Civil rights are all about pride, aren't they?

In the case of gays, it's all about trying to force society to sanction their ways of enjoying sex. That's right, ...for society to allow gays to marry is basically sanctioning their deviant, odd, strange ways of enjoying sex!

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Seems perfectly equal to me! See?

Gays want special rights ...above and beyond that afforded other males. (Ditto for homosexual females)

Baron Max

 

[distantcube]

In the case of gays, it's all about trying to force society to sanction their ways of enjoying sex. That's right, ...for society to allow gays to marry is basically sanctioning their deviant, odd, strange ways of enjoying sex!

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Seems perfectly equal to me! See?

Gays want special rights ...above and beyond that afforded other males. (Ditto for homosexual females)

Baron Max

As I explained in a previous thread, while the current marriage laws may technically not be discriminatory against gays, they are indeed sexist.
Males cannot marry males, whereas females can marry males.
Females cannot marry females, whereas males can marry females.
That's a blatantly sexist standard.

Either allow human beings to marry consenting adults of *either* gender, or make marriage a purely religious/private affair.

As for gay sex, what's the big deal? It doesn't harm you in any way, and heterosexual sexual interactions can be just as odd and deviant. You're probably twice my age, so I'm sure that you know that anal and oral sex occur in heterosexual couplings. Hell, in some cultures they are favoured means of sex (Turks come to mind). Stop kidding yourself, Baron.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

In the case of gays, it's all about trying to force society to sanction their ways of enjoying sex. That's right, ...for society to allow gays to marry is basically sanctioning their deviant, odd, strange ways of enjoying sex!

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Seems perfectly equal to me! See?

Gays want special rights ...above and beyond that afforded other males. (Ditto for homosexual females)

Baron Max

It's about trying to get society to stop condemning them & treating them unfairly. It's not a matter of SANCTIONING their deviant, odd, strange ways of enjoying sex. It's leaving them to freely enjoy their deviant, odd, strange ways of sex while you are left to feely enjoy your deviant, odd, strange ways of sex.
Gays do not want SPECIAL rights. They want the SAME rights as everyone else.
1111

 

[Cellar_Door]

Ah. Yes. Civil rights are all about pride, aren't they?

It's certainly an element of the movement, although I concede that it isn't the point in hand.

Your assertion—

"... you can't compare how a minority is treated to how the majority treats itself - it's illogical."​

—seems to make quite clearly the point that it is somehow unfair or improper to compare a social group's treatment of a minority against its own standards of decency.

I reject that proposition, as it advocates hypocrisy. Think about it in functional terms.

[/quote]

I obviously didn't get myself across well enough:

My point is that the majority is such a huge mixture of different personalities that one opinion will never be for all. Therefore heterosexuals, who are that vast majority, are so varied that it is almost impossible to stereotype them.
It would be like stereotyping the human race itself - something only a monkey could really do. However, homosexuals have fewer individuals to be exceptions, as it were.

Now I know stereotypes and being judgemental of people different to ourselves is not exactly commendable - but it's part of human nature. All I'm trying to point out is that this thread is not comparable to the last posts of the Gay Fray at all.

 

[Baron Max]

It's about trying to get society to stop condemning them & treating them unfairly.

Hmm, society also "condemns and treats unfairly" those old farts who hang around the playgrounds to watch little girls and boys at play! Would you have society treat them as any other normal person? They have some strange, odd, deviant sexual desires ...but as long as they've never actually done anything, shouldn't they be allowed to watch?

It's leaving them to freely enjoy their deviant, odd, strange ways of sex....

I'd fight to allow gays that freedom. But it stops there! For society to permit marriage for gays IS, regardless of what you say, IS sanctioning that odd, strange, deviant sexual behavior.

Gays already have the same rights as hetero males. What gays want is SPECIAL RIGHTS, above and beyond.

Baron Max