Why do gays have to ACT like gays?

[Iamme]

Like how they are at nightclubs...how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.

Like why are they into neatly manicured facial hair?

Why do they like to arrange stuff in their apartments just so, like they may even put their toiletries and manicure tools all in perfect diagonal rows.

Hmmmmm? What's with that?

Heterosexual males just have sex ..with women...without any stereotypical traits like the gays do. Why IS that? Why don't gays just have sex with men and act like heterosexuals in every other way?

[Lisa Simpson]

That was just inane on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe them all.

[Mojo]

You've been watching "Queer Eye..." haven't you? :rolleyes:

Edited to add: This was my response to Iamme, not Lisa.

Just to make it clear.

[Melendwyr]

A lot of those "heterosexual-acting" guys probably are gay. They just don't behave "like gays", whatever the hell that is.

[Lisa Simpson]

I like my beer cold...my TV loud...and my homosexuals flaming.--Homer Simpson

[TragicMonkey]

Iamme, will you stop for a moment and consider that maybe your post is possibly a little tiny bit offensive?

Replace the word "gay" with "black" in your thread title, then ask yourself if you find the result quite right. And would say it to a black person. If the answer is "no", then chances are you should think before you post.

[Iamme]

That was just inane on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe them all.

What?! What I stated was fact. I have been around gays and in their apartments. I maintained them! Why don't you try to tell me where my 3 measely things I posted are flawed? You don't know where to begin?...like I wrote some hundred page diatribe? Come on now.

[jay gw]

Some gays really go over the top with their behavior. There must be more that's affected than the part of the brain that's sexuality related. There must be more than that. They are more flamboyant than heterosexuals and that goes across cultures, not just in liberal countries. Why does anyone need parades and rainbow flags? For what purpose?

However, from the SCIENTIFIC point of view, there's nothing that measurably different. It's just attitude.

[Lisa Simpson]

Every single thing you posted is inane. And prejudiced. And pointless. Want me to keep going?

[LostAngeles]

Should I even bother to report this? Is there a rule against all those things you listed, Lisa?

Oh wait. Jay gw is in this too.

I hereby recommend that the thread be removed and the forum burned as cleansing.

[Terry]

Why do Gays have to act like Gays? Um, isn't it is tautologically true that anything a gay person does is acting like a gay person (for some definition of acting not involving theatrics)?

--Terry.

[Cleon]

Iamme, if there was ever a post demonstrating a poster's utter uselessness, it was yours.

Congratulations. I guess.

[Mercutio]

My father-in-law was certain he could spot a gay man. They simply acted a particular way. And of course, since every man he saw who acted that way was labeled "gay" by him, he had a 100% record.

When I told him he had probably played tennis against gay men (given the sheer number of men he had played tennis against), he disagreed--he would have known, of course! None of the men he had played against (my, it is tempting to write "played with") had had limp wrists, and so all were red-blooded heterosexuals. Nothing I could say would convince him.

One of my students was a rough, tough, South-Philly thug whom nobody wanted to cross. Oh, yeah, he was also gay. No one knew it until 3/4 of the way through class when we spoke about prejudice and discrimination, and he spoke of marching at the gay rights parade in DC, supporting his cause....the students who sat near him (who, he told me, had included him in their homophobic commentary just prior to his announcement) were stunned; who could have guessed that this man was a flaming queer?

Yeah, well...

There are effeminate heterosexuals, effeminate homosexuals, butch hets, and butch gays. Get over it, Iamme.

[Lisa Simpson]

Should I even bother to report this? Is there a rule against all those things you listed, Lisa?

Oh wait. Jay gw is in this too.

I hereby recommend that the thread be removed and the forum burned as cleansing.

That's a little extreme, don't think? Burning? Can't we just redecorate?

BTW, I don't think there's a rule against inanity. This thread is pointless and prejudicial, but civil.

[RandFan]

Heterosexual males just have sex ..with women...without any stereotypical traits ... Are you kidding? You've never seen a macho Neanderthal pig. Hey, I'm male. I like being male. But damn, I have sure seen a lot of boorish stereotypical behavior on the part of heterosexuals.

You're a bigot who sees only what you want to see.

Too bad. The world's a pretty cool place once you stop hating people who are different than you.

[Whyatica]

Why does Iamme have to ACT like Iamme?

[Freakshow]

Why do idiots have to ACT like idiots? Why don't idiots just be idiots in the privacy of their own heads, and act like smarter people in every other way?

[Captain_Snort]

I think Iamme is in denial, he secretly lusts after a gay life, he wants to be the biker dude out of the village people.

[LostAngeles]

That's a little extreme, don't think? Burning? Can't we just redecorate?

BTW, I don't think there's a rule against inanity. This thread is pointless and prejudicial, but civil.

True. It makes me wish we could at least slap them.

And fire is the only way to remove such... Iamme-ness

[Lisa Simpson]

I think Iamme is in denial, he secretly lusts after a gay life, he wants to be the biker dude out of the village people.

That is soooooo 70s. Get with the times. He wants to be the sixth Queer Eye. Or twelfth. Something like that.

[Captain_Snort]

That is soooooo 70s. Get with the times. He wants to be the sixth Queer Eye. Or twelfth. Something like that.

OK, I will update to he wants to be Xena, warrior princess.

[Abdul Alhazred]

As someone who is openly (and forumly) gay, I must ask. What does it mean to act gay?

I have a true answer but shyness and forum rules forbid.

That said, I assume you mean public behavior? That can vary from canonical queer swishiness, to looking any man, to hyper-masculinity.

I'm somewhere in the middle, but if you knew me you'd probably know without being told.

Yes one can tell most of the time, if you're looking for it. It's called 'gaydar'.

But I think you are dealing in stale stereotypes, Iamme.

[Freakshow]

As someone who is openly (and forumly) gay, I must ask. What does it mean to act gay?

I have a true answer but shyness and forum rules forbid.

That said, I assume you mean public behavior? That can vary from canonical queer swishiness, to looking any man, to hyper-masculinity.

I'm somewhere in the middle, but if you knew me you'd probably know without being told.

Yes one can tell most of the time, if you're looking for it. It's called 'gaydar'.

But I think you are dealing in stale stereotypes, Iamme. Kinda funny story here...the last girlfriend I had thought I was gay, when I met her. She lives in a big city now, but spent most of her life in a much smaller town. Not too much (I hate this word...hate it, hate it, hate it...but it fits) "diversity" there. I'm straight, but have the whole metrosexual thing going on. Multiple earrings, spiky hair (I use wax, so it gets a really good nice sloppy-spike look), some nice clothes, some bracelets and necklaces at times, etc. She said it actually made her more comfortable when I started talking to her. That's not at all the purpose of why I look the way I do. I'm just me, and look how I want to look. And I don't deliberately go for a particular style of look. I just do what I want to do, and I wind up looking a certain way, that's all.

I just thought it was funny. She first saw me/met me, and thought "Oh, this guy is gay", and she eventually wound up becoming my girlfriend. Kinda funny.

[Meadmaker]

Like, I was in a bar the other night, and there were these girls there. You know the type. They had their hair done just right, and they were wearing makeup. Two of them had on high heels, and all of them were wearing low cut shirts with lots of cleavage.

I mean, it was like they were screaming, "HEY. WE ARE HETEROSEXUAL FEMALES, AND WE WANT MEN TO THINK WE LOOK GOOD."

And if that wasn't enough, some guy walked over to their table and actually BOUGHT ONE OF THEM A DRINK. Uggh! I swear he swaggered as he walked. Then he asked her to dance, of course. OK. Like, she wasn't bad, but he could really use some help. But, well, I'm guessing he wasn't realy so much dancing as trying to "pick up babes" ya know? The way he was looking at her, with that half smile, and his combed perfect hair. I'm surprised they didn't start going at it right there in the bar.

I mean, what's up with that? It's one thing to be heterosexual, but why do they have to act so much like heterosexuals?

[Ducky]

Yeah.

One word:

F*ckwit.

[Mark]

As someone who is openly (and forumly) gay, I must ask. What does it mean to act gay?



Yes one can tell most of the time, if you're looking for it. It's called 'gaydar'.



Oh, please, Abdul, do we really have to argue about that again?

Btw, I asked my gay brother-in-law about that the last time we debated your "gaydar." He laughed and said he has friends who say the same thing but that he thought it was bill***t.

For what it's worth.

[Manny]

Iamme, if there was ever a post demonstrating a poster's utter uselessness, it was yours.

Congratulations. I guess.Iamme, would you like to know one of the immutable laws of the universe? For free? Here it is:

When Cleon and I agree completely and totally, without a single nit to pick, we're right.

[Jeff Corey]

I'll just remind you of the Faculty rules. Rule 1 - no pooftahs. Rule 2 - no member of the Faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever, if there's anybody watchin', Rule 3 - No pooftahs. Rule 4 - I don't want to catch anyone not drinkin' in their room after lights out. Rule 5 -no pooftahs. Rule 6 - there is NO rule 6. Rule 7 - no pooftahs.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yeah OK Mark.

The point for a gay man is avoiding false positives. Not proving paranormality.

False negative == avoiding trouble, maybe missing something.

False positive == a fight, maybe being killed.

Get it, buddy?

[Abdul Alhazred]

And Mark, I still claim that I usually can tell.

And I claim no supernatural powers.

It's where the roving eyes are roving. I notice.

[Jas]

Like how they are at nightclubs...how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.


What crack are you smoking?

[Cleon]

Iamme, would you like to know one of the immutable laws of the universe? For free? Here it is:

When Cleon and I agree completely and totally, without a single nit to pick, we're right.
That, or the apocalypse is nigh, but I haven't seen a group of guys riding around on horseback...

[username]

I am going to go ahead and agree with Iamme on this one. Haven't a problem in the world concerning a person's sexual orientation, but the other day...

I was in a meeting at work in a part of the building I am not normally in. After the meeting I am walking back to my area and in front of me is this very tall, big bellied guy. His ass was about chest level on me, a big guy.

He was wearing shiny, black leather pants. I couldn't not notice it. It was shocking. First, I am not at all used to seeing men in real life wear shiny leather pants. Hair band era rockers on MTV sure, but in real life? Second, never in a million years would I have thought the place I would see a man wearing such pants would be in a professional office. I mean wtf?

So I commented to a coworker about it and my coworker informed me the guy was a flaming homo and the president of the local gay/lesbian alliance. My reaction was 'so what? nobody in their right mind wears that kind of thing in a profesional office environment.'. OK, he is gay, fine. He wears it to the clubs/bars after work. Fine. But wearing it to work? Gimme a break.

It isn't even like the guy has an appropriate body shape for it, he is fat and the tight pants do nothing but draw attention to his hanging gut.

So I would have to say that in the case of this gay guy I wish he was a little less flamboyant about it. From what I hear he regularly makes sexually suggestive remarks to straight, married guys at work too.

If he wasn't gay he would be fired. Because he is gay nobody has the balls to confront him.

[Regnad Kcin]

That, or the apocalypse is nigh, but I haven't seen a group of guys riding around on horseback...Watch out if they end up wearing those Judas Priest leader singer caps!

[Regnad Kcin]

...Because he is gay nobody has the balls to confront him.So to speak.

[Vitriolis]

Kinda funny story here...the last girlfriend I had thought I was gay, when I met her. She lives in a big city now, but spent most of her life in a much smaller town. Not too much (I hate this word...hate it, hate it, hate it...but it fits) "diversity" there. I'm straight, but have the whole metrosexual thing going on. Multiple earrings, spiky hair (I use wax, so it gets a really good nice sloppy-spike look), some nice clothes, some bracelets and necklaces at times, etc. She said it actually made her more comfortable when I started talking to her. That's not at all the purpose of why I look the way I do. I'm just me, and look how I want to look. And I don't deliberately go for a particular style of look. I just do what I want to do, and I wind up looking a certain way, that's all.

I just thought it was funny. She first saw me/met me, and thought "Oh, this guy is gay", and she eventually wound up becoming my girlfriend. Kinda funny.

I am 100% hetero, but I am constantly labeled gay, always (except once) by other men. I have a slight speach impediment..my esses sound like ethes, I have a flair for the dramatic and I'm kinda fussy ( I was going to say anal..oops) so I guess I fit the stereotype. I think it's funny actually.

A couple of years ago I was working in a temp position. One of my co-irkers, a flakey flirty dipstick, was coming on to me like crazy. I played dumb ( I get a strange pleasure from playing dumb, when people are being obvious), so she started telling everyone I was gay. She did the same crap that guys pull when rejected by a woman...she must be a dyke!

[Skeptic]

I always wanted to ask the openly gay people on this forum--do you find "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" offensive?

I am not offended by it since in taking offense, intent matters a great deal, and this show obviously has no intention of hurting anybody, nor does it take itself too seriously.

But that said... what would you say about a show like "jewish Eye for the Gentile Guy" (five jewish lawyers/bankers arrange a guy's investments protfolio to yield far higher results) or "Black Eye for the White Guy" (white guy being taught to play basketball and dance)?

I don't think such shows would be more stereotypical than "Queer Eye". Yet they would never be shown.

[BPSCG]

Multiple earrings, spiky hair (I use wax, so it gets a really good nice sloppy-spike look), some nice clothes, some bracelets and necklaces at times, etc.

(...snip...)

And I don't deliberately go for a particular style of look. Huh? You mean you wake up in the am and those earrings just automagically attach themselves to your ears, and your hair follicles exude wax overnight (like earwax?) and someone welded bracelets on your wrists one night while you were passed-out drunk and... :D

[BPSCG]

Okay, I'm actually going to (sorta) second Iamme's post here (yikes - Manny and Cleon on the same page, and Iamme and BPSCG, all on the same topic - those Four Horsemen are on their way, sure as the sunrise...)

Anyway..

Iamme's asking about personal habits and dress codes is not what I'm agreeing with - I think those are simply personal preference, including the whole leather-and-chains thing, which I suppose is also an attempt to advertise, rather than hide, one's homosexuality.

But the entire slightly effeminate manner - the limp wrists and such - strike me as being somehow physiologically hard-wired - Vitriolis being a rare exception. Abdul Alhazred claims to have "gaydar", and really, everyone has it, to some degree. When I was growing up, a family moved in behind us, and the boy, who was my age - about 12 at the time - struck me, and the rest of us kids - as a little "odd", for reasons we didn't quite understand. If we'd had no understanding or awareness of homosexuality at that age, then what were we noticing about this boy, and why?

I'm not saying that "gaydar" is infallible, but there are times that you know someone is gay just from his general manner and deportment. I'm interpreting Iamme's OP question to mean, "Is that general manner and deportment hardwired, or is it a cultural thing?" My sense of it is that it is hardwired.

[Belz...]

That, or the apocalypse is nigh, but I haven't seen a group of guys riding around on horseback...

Nope. The horses are still in the stables right here. No worry for now. Mouahahahaa!

[Mark]

Yeah OK Mark.

The point for a gay man is avoiding false positives. Not proving paranormality.

False negative == avoiding trouble, maybe missing something.

False positive == a fight, maybe being killed.

Get it, buddy?

You should apply for the JREF prize.

OK, I will readily concede that sometimes you can guess right. Nevertheless, a lot of bigots have beaten up people because they are convinced that they have excellent "gaydar," too. I find the idea dangerous in the extreme, even when it is a gay guy claiming it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There are effeminate heterosexuals, effeminate homosexuals, butch hets, and butch gays. Get over it, Iamme.

You sure do have a purty mouth.

[Czarzy]

... When I was growing up, a family moved in behind us, and the boy, who was my age - about 12 at the time - struck me, and the rest of us kids - as a little "odd", for reasons we didn't quite understand. If we'd had no understanding or awareness of homosexuality at that age, then what were we noticing about this boy, and why? ...


And did you ever have subsequent evidence that this boy actually was homosexual? Or is it that in remembering this that you assume he was gay, due to knowledge gained afterwards of homosexuality and some characteristics that many homosexuals display. If the latter, the oddness that you noticed could have been due to other reasons than homosexuality.

Some other reasons a child may be sensed as odd to other children: behaviors due to physical or emotional abuse.

We even as children readily perceive and remember behavior varying from the norm. In trying to understand it retrospectively, we might attribute that odd behavior to this or that, but without the history of the individual, its just speculation.

[davefoc]

I interpretted Iamme's OP in about the same way that BPSCG did. It is a topic I have wondered about for awhile. How does one's sexual preference play a role in promoting behaviors that don't seem to be related to sex.

I think BPSCG might be wrong in that I suspect many of the stereotypical behaviors have more to do with advertising or belonging to the group than that they are hardwired. I do think that heterosexuals are just as interested in letting the world know they are heterosexuals as gays are in letting the world know they are homosexuals and both heterosexuals and gays engage in various behaviors to accomplish that. I suppose some of those behaviors have a hard wired component. Maybe Abdul's theory about roving eyes in one such hardwired type behavior.

[Mark]

Okay, I'm actually going to (sorta) second Iamme's post here (yikes - Manny and Cleon on the same page, and Iamme and BPSCG, all on the same topic - those Four Horsemen are on their way, sure as the sunrise...)

Anyway..

Iamme's asking about personal habits and dress codes is not what I'm agreeing with - I think those are simply personal preference, including the whole leather-and-chains thing, which I suppose is also an attempt to advertise, rather than hide, one's homosexuality.

But the entire slightly effeminate manner - the limp wrists and such - strike me as being somehow physiologically hard-wired - Vitriolis being a rare exception. Abdul Alhazred claims to have "gaydar", and really, everyone has it, to some degree. When I was growing up, a family moved in behind us, and the boy, who was my age - about 12 at the time - struck me, and the rest of us kids - as a little "odd", for reasons we didn't quite understand. If we'd had no understanding or awareness of homosexuality at that age, then what were we noticing about this boy, and why?

I'm not saying that "gaydar" is infallible, but there are times that you know someone is gay just from his general manner and deportment. I'm interpreting Iamme's OP question to mean, "Is that general manner and deportment hardwired, or is it a cultural thing?" My sense of it is that it is hardwired.


No, you don't know, not ever. There are times when you can make an accurate guess, but that is not the same thing. I mind the fellow I knew in High School, whom we all "knew" was gay...people with "gaydar" would have called him "flaming." I got to know him later on, and found out he was not gay at all...in fact, was quite happily married (to a woman) at the time.

"Gaydar" is nothing more than bigotry with a cutsie name.

[Terry]

I always wanted to ask the openly gay people on this forum--do you find "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" offensive?

no, but it totally sucks.

--Terry.

[BPSCG]

And did you ever have subsequent evidence that this boy actually was homosexual? Um, yeah; his sister and my sister were best friends, and still remain close forty years later despite living thousands of miles apart. He died of AIDS around 1990 or so, and his sister is active in some families-with-gays support group. And his sister told my sister who told me, blah blah blah.

[Terry]

But the entire slightly effeminate manner - the limp wrists and such - strike me as being somehow physiologically hard-wired - Vitriolis being a rare exception. Abdul Alhazred claims to have "gaydar", and really, everyone has it, to some degree. When I was growing up, a family moved in behind us, and the boy, who was my age - about 12 at the time - struck me, and the rest of us kids - as a little "odd", for reasons we didn't quite understand. If we'd had no understanding or awareness of homosexuality at that age, then what were we noticing about this boy, and why?

I'm not saying that "gaydar" is infallible, but there are times that you know someone is gay just from his general manner and deportment. I'm interpreting Iamme's OP question to mean, "Is that general manner and deportment hardwired, or is it a cultural thing?" My sense of it is that it is hardwired.

Swishiness might be hard-wired in some people, but in my experience, it isn't well correlated with being gay. On the other hand, I remember reading as a teenager that the limp-wrist thing was a learned behaviour amongst homosexual men. I've been trying to locate that, but it appears my google-fu is not strong enough.

For what its worth, I guess most people who make that kind of a classification would call me "straight-acting". Not that I make any particular effort to avoid stereotypically-gay behaviour, but just because that's the way I am.

--Terry.

[BPSCG]

No, you don't know, not ever. There are times when you can make an accurate guess, but that is not the same thing. I mind the fellow I knew in High School, whom we all "knew" was gay...people with "gaydar" would have called him "flaming." I got to know him later on, and found out he was not gay at all...in fact, was quite happily married (to a woman) at the time.By that standard, you don't ever know if someone is hetero, either.

"I can tell when a guy is straight."

"No, you don't know, not ever. There are times when you can make an accurate guess, but that is not the same thing. I mind the fellow I knew in High School, whom we all 'knew' was straight...people with 'straightdar' would have called him 'macho.' I got to know him later on, and found out he was not straight at all...in fact, was quite happily married (to a guy) at the time."

There's very little you know for absolute certain But c'mon, Mark - you've never met someone with the characteristic gay behaviors (I'm not talking about "flaming" stuff), and figured out - non-judgementally, of course - that he was probably gay?

[Mark]

By that standard, you don't ever know if someone is hetero, either.

"I can tell when a guy is straight."

"No, you don't know, not ever. There are times when you can make an accurate guess, but that is not the same thing. I mind the fellow I knew in High School, whom we all 'knew' was straight...people with 'straightdar' would have called him 'macho.' I got to know him later on, and found out he was not straight at all...in fact, was quite happily married (to a guy) at the time."

There's very little you know for absolute certain But c'mon, Mark - you've never met someone with the characteristic gay behaviors (I'm not talking about "flaming" stuff), and figured out - non-judgementally, of course - that he was probably gay?

You are absolutely correct...there is no sure way to determine someone else's sexual orientation.

Of course, there are times when I meet people and think they may be gay or straight. But I would never, ever make the claim that I was certain about it...that I had some sort of mystical "gaydar" power that was infallible, or even close to it.

Interesting you use the example of the "macho" straight guy who was actually gay. You have never met such a person? I have.

But at least you are using the mystical force "non-judgmentally." That's a step in the right direction (I don't mean to sound condescending, btw. I'm serious).

[TragicMonkey]

I always wanted to ask the openly gay people on this forum--do you find "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" offensive?

I don't care for it, more because it seems to reinforce the notion that to be a good person you need to a) have a lot of money, and b) waste it on crap, than for any of the ridiculous stereotypes the show purveys.

It is a little offensive because by picking five flamey gays, and showing their interests in interior design and hair and clothes, it just gives the audience the perception that that's how gays are. Yeah, I'm sure many of them are. But most are regular people, and it's irritating and demeaning to have people expect us to live up to the stereotypes. It'd be like expecting all black people to speak Ebonics and dress hip hop, or all Asians to be good at math and science. It's not exactly insulting to be accused of being good at hair and decorating, but it is insulting for people to assume they know things about you because of their stereotypes about a group you're in.

Although the stereotypes do come in handy when gays need to hide it. My last job was at a company where everyone else was extremely homophobic. As in, long tirades from my boss about the evils of gaiety, and how those people ought to be rounded up and killed. He would have fired me the instant he suspected I were gay, if not gone ahead and beaten me up as well. However, he never had an inkling because he expects all gays to be limpwristed fashion plates with product in their hair.

Stereotyping is blindness.

[TragicMonkey]

But the entire slightly effeminate manner - the limp wrists and such - strike me as being somehow physiologically hard-wired - Vitriolis being a rare exception. Abdul Alhazred claims to have "gaydar", and really, everyone has it, to some degree. When I was growing up, a family moved in behind us, and the boy, who was my age - about 12 at the time - struck me, and the rest of us kids - as a little "odd", for reasons we didn't quite understand. If we'd had no understanding or awareness of homosexuality at that age, then what were we noticing about this boy, and why?

I'm not saying that "gaydar" is infallible, but there are times that you know someone is gay just from his general manner and deportment. I'm interpreting Iamme's OP question to mean, "Is that general manner and deportment hardwired, or is it a cultural thing?" My sense of it is that it is hardwired.

You're wrong. The error you're making is to see such behavior and see that the people who exhibit it are usually gay, therefore you're concluding that gays have that behavior. Some of them do, true. But most do not. You don't know about them because you can only identify gays by that behavior.

I'm pretty damn gay. I don't have limp wrists. I don't dress fancy. I don't talk funny. I don't have jewelry, or hair products, or walk funny. To date, only about five straight people have figured out I was gay without my telling them. And three of them guessed it for idiotic reasons, like that I'm good at writing and have a large vocabulary. Or that I'm over 25 and not fat.

It's not that I'm hiding it by faking "straight" behavior; it's simply that that's how I am. The real basis of "gaydar" is that gay people know that the flaming queen stereotype only accurately portrays a small percentage of gays, therefore we're open to the possibility that regular people might be gay. Straight people tend to blindness in such things; they look for certain criteria, and if they don't find them, they assume you're heterosexual. Because heterosexual is the default position in this culture.

[Freakshow]

Huh? You mean you wake up in the am and those earrings just automagically attach themselves to your ears, and your hair follicles exude wax overnight (like earwax?) and someone welded bracelets on your wrists one night while you were passed-out drunk and... :D
LOL! :D

What I mean is...I didn't start out with some end goal of wanting to have some sort of "type" of image. It isn't all part of some calculated plan to end up a certain way. I just do what I want. I like these earrings. Hey, this necklace is nice. I'll buy this shirt. Cool shoes! All choices in my look made individually, not with any image goal in mind. I just end up the way I end up. :)

[Melendwyr]

LOL! :D

What I mean is...I didn't start out with some end goal of wanting to have some sort of "type" of image. It isn't all part of some calculated plan to end up a certain way. I just do what I want. I like these earrings. Hey, this necklace is nice. I'll buy this shirt. Cool shoes! All choices in my look made individually, not with any image goal in mind. I just end up the way I end up. :) Well, there ya go: a desire for individuality, a concern for personal appearance, and an awareness of image. All warning signs of teh ghey! :boggled:

[Freakshow]

Like how they are at nightclubs...how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.

Like why are they into neatly manicured facial hair?

Why do they like to arrange stuff in their apartments just so, like they may even put their toiletries and manicure tools all in perfect diagonal rows.

Hmmmmm? What's with that?

Heterosexual males just have sex ..with women...without any stereotypical traits like the gays do. Why IS that? Why don't gays just have sex with men and act like heterosexuals in every other way? Iamme, let me tell you one of my favorite stories. I think it will help greatly in your understanding of how you fit in here. Knowing where one fits into the world is one of the most important factors in a happy life.



There once was a little frog. He longed to talk to people, so he could end his lifetime of isolation and fly-eating.

One day, a fairy godmother showed up. She said to the frog "ribbet". Which, translated into English means "I know that you have longed so badly to be able to speak to humans. You have lived a good life, and been a good frog, so I will grant you that wish."

The little frog replied "ribbet". Which translated into English, means, "Gee, thanks!"

So she waved her magic wand and...the frog could speak English! He said "Thanks, fairy godmother! I'm off to use my new-found ability to speak English!"

So the frog hops out of the woods, and hops around until he finds a man to talk to. The little frog says "Hi! I have just become able to speak English! I want to talk to people! How are you today?"

The man...STOMPS on the little frog, splattering his little frog guts and frog blood all over the place. The man walks off, muttering under his breath "Don't f***ing talk to me."



I hope this story has been illuminating to you, and that you can learn a great deal from it. It contains a profound and important message, around which you can base your entire life. It has a deep and meaningful lesson in it.

Happy I can help...

[RandFan]

no, but it totally sucks.

--Terry. But it seems to appeal to some who otherwise were opposed to watching gay images on TV. My brother-in-law included. It is one of his favorite shows. I don't know if that is good or bad. I don't care for the show myself. However I think ultimately the more gay and lesbian images on TV the better for all of us.

But to tell you the truth I find many such situations uncomfortable. I tried on more than one occasion but simply could not watch Queer as Folk. My guess is that my feelings are indoctrinated and hopefully in a generation or two such visceral responses will be mostly eliminated in part because of such images on TV. Intellectually I think my problem is MY problem. There was a great SNL skit about parents with gay children. The skit was a commercial for a drug called homocil to help the parents cope with their feelings because as the tag line states, "it's YOUR problem and not theirs."

FWIW I have no problem watching The "L" Word.

[RandFan]

I hope this story has been illuminating to you, and that you can learn a great deal from it. It contains a profound and important message, around which you can base your entire life. It has a deep and meaningful lesson in it.

Happy I can help...The important message? Never drink soda while reading posts on JREF. :D

[BPSCG]

You're wrong. The error you're making is to see such behavior and see that the people who exhibit it are usually gay, therefore you're concluding that gays have that behavior. Nononononononono...

Consider the following logical fallacy:

- Many Americans are men.
- Therefore all men are American.

You're accusing me of the same logical error:
- Many gays have mannerisms and behavior patterns that are clearly identifiable.
- Therefore all gays have mannerisms and behavior patterns that are clearly identifiable.

What I'm saying is that many gay men have mannerisms and behavior patterns that are clearly identifiable, and very few hetero men have those same mannerisms and behavior patterns.

Therefore, a man having those mannerisms and behavior patterns is probably gay.
Some of them do, true. But most do not. You don't know about them because you can only identify gays by that behavior.Correct: If I see encounter a guy who's limp-wristed, etc., I conclude he's probably gay (especially if he has his arm around the guy sitting in the seat next to him at the ballet - true story...). I don't conclude that all gay men are so readily identified, nor do I conclude that all men following those behavior patterns are gay. Mrs. BPSCG and I subscribe to the local symphony concert series. Before each concert, a well-known local PBS radio host gives a lecture about the music we're about to hear. He's in his 60's, has shoulder-length, but carefully-coiffed hair, wears flamboyant clothing, wears earrings and bracelets, and has a fairly effeminate posture when he's at the dais.

He also occasionally mentions his wife. I surmise he is probably not gay, and that the usual indicia I use, while highly reliable, are not perfect.

It's not that I'm hiding it by faking "straight" behavior; it's simply that that's how I am. And I've known gays who were as "straight" in appearance and attitude as you could imagine, so you don't have to convince me.
Straight people tend to blindness in such things; they look for certain criteria, and if they don't find them, they assume you're heterosexual. Anyone who does that is a fool or an ignoramus.Because heterosexual is the default position in this culture.Well, yeah, in much the same way that being right-handed is. Being left-handed - or gay - is the exception, not the rule.

[clk]

Iamme, will you stop for a moment and consider that maybe your post is possibly a little tiny bit offensive?

Replace the word "gay" with "black" in your thread title, then ask yourself if you find the result quite right. And would say it to a black person. If the answer is "no", then chances are you should think before you post.

This is pretty funny, but I don't think that test necessarily holds. I think people are overly sensitive anytime someone says anything about black people.

Example:
I was watching TV when I came across an old re-run of that show "Full House". Anyways, one of the main dudes (I think Jesse) was practicing basketball, and he sucked. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (a famous basketball player) walked up to him, and Jesse didn't know who he was. Jesse noticed he was tall, so he said to him: "basketball must come naturally to you, since you're tall". Do you see anything wrong with what he just said? I bet most people would even consider it a complement.

Yet, I laughed when I heard him say that, because had he said: "basketball must come naturally to you, since you're black", he would have been considered a racist, and a firestorm would have erupted around that one statement. Why is that? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar can't control the fact that he is tall or black. Yet, one statement is racist, while the other is a complement. It's all politically correct bullsh*t. I'm not a fan of lamme, but I don't think there is anything offensive in what he said. It might not be politically correct, but I for one am sick and tired of politically correct bullsh*t. It distorts the truth.

[BPSCG]

Interesting you use the example of the "macho" straight guy who was actually gay. I was simply reversing your argument/example.
You have never met such a person? I have. Actually worked with one for a couple of years. I never "figured it out"; cow-orkers told me.
But at least you are using the mystical force "non-judgmentally." That's a step in the right direction (I don't mean to sound condescending, btw. I'm serious).Um, it's not like I'm making some kind of progress in my battle with homophobia or something. I consider homosexuality to be exactly as abnormal, deviant, and worthy of condemnation as being left-handed.

[TragicMonkey]

It's all politically correct bullsh*t. I'm not a fan of lamme, but I don't think there is anything offensive in what he said. It might not be politically correct, but I for one am sick and tired of politically correct bullsh*t. It distorts the truth.

You know, sometimes things are offensive and not because the target is being "politically correct". Yeah, sometimes people go overboard trying not to offend. But sometimes people are really being offensive, and accusing people who take offense of "politically correct bullsh*t" is just placing the blame on the offended. I guess I should have just taken it quietly, eh? Otherwise I'm just a "politically correct" whiner.

[clk]

You know, sometimes things are offensive and not because the target is being "politically correct". Yeah, sometimes people go overboard trying not to offend. But sometimes people are really being offensive, and accusing people who take offense of "politically correct bullsh*t" is just placing the blame on the offended. I guess I should have just taken it quietly, eh? Otherwise I'm just a "politically correct" whiner.

I was pointing out that his post was not offensive to me. Offense is obviously highly subjective. I used to hang around the message boards on the old "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" site. One thing that I noticed is that every night, without fail, there would be a thread started by a new poster complaining about a joke from Jay Leno. If Leno made a fat joke during his show, a fat person would post a thread complaining about it. If Leno made a joke about people from Kentucky being inbred rednecks, a person from Kentucky would start a thread complaining about that joke. These people would usually comment that they liked the show up until the point where Jay made the joke in question, and then state that they would no longer be watching the show from now on. The funny thing was, the person who complained about the Kentucky joke would find the fat joke funny, and vice versa. Do you see my point? It's hard to explain it in writing.

[TragicMonkey]

I was pointing out that his post was not offensive to me. Offense is obviously highly subjective. I used to hang around the message boards on the old "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" site. One thing that I noticed is that every night, without fail, there would be a thread started by a new poster complaining about a joke from Jay Leno. If Leno made a fat joke during his show, a fat person would post a thread complaining about it. If Leno made a joke about people from Kentucky being inbred rednecks, a person from Kentucky would start a thread complaining about that joke. These people would usually comment that they liked the show up until the point where Jay made the joke in question, and then state that they would no longer be watching the show from now on. The funny thing was, the person who complained about the Kentucky joke would find the fat joke funny, and vice versa. Do you see my point? It's hard to explain it in writing.

Yeah, I see your point. I must lack a sense of humor for being offended when someone insults my kind.

[Freakshow]

Yeah, I see your point. I must lack a sense of humor for being offended when someone insults my kind.
Maybe, but that's okay. People are different. Some are sensitive in some ways, and some aren't. Myself, I don't give one flying F*** about what someone thinks about me or "my kind" (which can mean lots of things). There's one exception, that can make my blood boil...but I'm not going there. :)

But that's alright. There's nothing wrong with the fact that some people are more sensitive than others. Its just another way that people are different, that's all.

It doesn't make you weak or a bad person because you are sensitive about insults. And it doesn't make me an arrogant p***k because I think anyone who doesn't like me can f*** off. Okay...well...I *AM* an arrogant p***k, but that's a different subject. :)

Its all good. We're all a little different from each other.

Note the quote from Ali, in my sig...

[Lisa Simpson]

Yeah, I see your point. I must lack a sense of humor for being offended when someone insults my kind.


Didn't you get the memo, TM? You aren't allowed to act gay, you aren't allowed to marry, and you aren't allowed to be offended at others' stupidity. Sorry.

[clk]

Yeah, I see your point. I must lack a sense of humor for being offended when someone insults my kind.

OK, so you don't get my point. That's fine.

Why do you even care what lamme says? He's a dumbass anyways. Why would you be offended by anything he says?

[Kerberos]

Of course, there are times when I meet people and think they may be gay or straight. But I would never, ever make the claim that I was certain about it...that I had some sort of mystical "gaydar" power that was infallible, or even close to it.
Then you haven't meet the right gays. I would not claim to have a gaydar, since I can generally only tell in extreme cases, but there was a French teacher on my school who was so incredibly obviously gay that you'd have to be blind and deaf to miss it. It really was sureal, he pranced, he had really, really limp wrists, he had a squeky voice (which I doubt was natural), he had this really sterotypical gay laugh. I'm sorry, but no straight guy ever behaved like this guy did, not unless he was deliberatly parodizing gay behaviour. In some cases there might be room for doubt, but in others there just isn't.

[TragicMonkey]

Eh, I know, I know. But it builds up after a while, you know? Little things over time, but they just keep coming. It's frustrating.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Iamme, what a sssthilly sthing for you to possstht…

Like how they are at nightclubs..
How are they?

Our straight friends dragged us to a gay bar once; it was kind of interesting, but we never went back. Did you mean, gays just sit quietly and nurse a beer? If so, you’re spot on.

.how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.

Are chaps alone considered “full leather”?

Sheesh, I’m not sure what sort of cap you’re talking about but my closet contains nothing but the baseball variety (and is 98% leather free). Now, those lesbians and their flannel, that’s different…

Like why are they into neatly manicured facial hair?

Doesn’t everybody? Everybody (from the seventies) loves a nice mustache.

By “gay” do you mean the village people?

Why do they like to arrange stuff in their apartments just so, like they may even put their toiletries and manicure tools all in perfect diagonal rows.

Oh how my family would love me to be that sort of gay.

Maybe other people do it because they’ve been through a lot of stress with their family, work environment, and culture and OCD behaviors, like aligning toiletries, gives a comforting sense of control? Don’t know.


In seriousness, some gays make the same mistakes. The last sliver of hope for me was the thought that I can’t be gay, because I don’t act gay. While it turns out you don’t have to like leather, drag, duvet covers, or Madonna, the stereotypes are just easy to rely on, particularly when you want them to be true.

Still there may be some truth in them, when you look at gays as a group.

There are a number of reasons I can think of as to why people may “act gay”: 1. As Abdul points out, to signal other gays. 2. To gain a sense of culture to replace the one you grew up on that won’t take you anymore. 3. Because you genuinely “act gay” as part of your nature, and 4. To make bigoted jerks uncomfortable :).

None of that makes pigeonholing individuals right though.

[toddjh]

As a non-straight guy myself, I also have to come out (so to speak) and say that I think Iamme has a point, although he only halfway articulates it, and his gay stereotypes are about fifteen years out of date. I think those who defensively declare that there is absolutely no correlation between sexual preference and behavior are either not very observant or in denial.

I have known many, many gay guys, and, while I agree that there is no universal gay demeanor, I have found a fairly strong correlation between being openly gay and, well, "swishiness," as others have called it. The "openly" part is important -- closeted (or just private) gay guys don't seem to have nearly as strong a correlation.

I believe there are three separate things contributing to this phenomenon:

1. Swishy -> Openly gay

Swishiness automatically makes people suspect homosexuality, so swishy gay men are outed whether they like it or not, while non-swishy gay men have the option of remaining incognito. Thus, we should not be surprised to find a higher frequency of swishiness in the openly gay population. However, this fails to explain how swishiness came to be viewed as an indicator of homosexuality to begin with, which I think is an important question.

2. Openly gay -> Swishy

Openly gay men tend to make a stronger effort to be a part of the gay community than closeted gay men. In this case, it's possible that swishiness is a social construct originating in the gay community at large. As with number 1, this is an incomplete explanation because it doesn't explain why swishiness came to be associated with homosexuality in the first place.

3. Independent factor -> Both Openly gay and Swishy

It's also possible that some outside force (either biological or social) influences both a person's desire to be open about their homosexuality and their apparent swishiness. The fact that sexual preference is obviously a spectrum lends some weight to this idea, and it could answer the question of why swishiness came to be associated with homosexuality. However, it fails to explain why there are plenty of swishy straight men and non-swishy gay men.

In fact, if I can go off on a tangent here, it makes me wonder if there aren't two separate types of homosexuality -- maybe some people are gay because of biology and some are gay because of environment? Or because of separate biological factors? That could be one possible explanation for the significant, but not perfect, correlation between sexual preference and demeanor.

Jeremy

[Freakshow]

In fact, if I can go off on a tangent here, it makes me wonder if there aren't two separate types of homosexuality -- maybe some people are gay because of biology and some are gay because of environment?
I would think that to be very likely, as demonstrated by the fact that rates of homosexuality/bisexuality are different between different societies. "Different" also meaning the same society over different time periods. Some people are gay/bi because of genetics. And some are gay/bi because of environment.

[epepke]

What I think we're seeing here is a conflict between political reasons to believe things and evidential reasons to believe things. Gays still reasonbly fear getting beaten up, raped, or even killed for being gay. It's a lot rarer than it used to be, and I look forward to the day when it isn't an issue any more. So there's a widespread political belief that one is not supposed to believe that there are identifiable characteristics that are probablistically correlated with being gay. The idea is criticized for being bad in the political or moral sense.

It can become clearer if we think back to a time when things were even worse for gays, such as the 1950s. Alan Turing, who is probably as or more important than any single other individual both for the technology that you are using now and for the Allied victory on the European front in World War II, was forced to take estrogen injections by the British authorities. They also prevented him from leaving the country and didn't give one of his lovers from the Continent a visa to see him. Turing later killed himself. Of course, it wasn't only Britain. According to Andrew Hodges, at the time, 11 US States still had castration on the books as a penalty for homosexuality.

In 1952, the same year that Turing was convicted, Liberace was beginning to become very popular through television appearances in the United States and Europe. In 1956, The Daily Mirror ran an article saying that Liberace had sex-appeal and that he was a homosexual. Liberace successfully sued the paper for libel. He declared under oath that he was not a homosexual. This was, of course, politically expedient, but it was also a flat-out lie.

In the 1980s, for a time, people were still denying that Liberace was gay. I saw the comedian Kip Adotta in a little club in San Francisco, and part of his routine was about things people knew but didn't admit to knowing. "Liberace is gay. You know that." (Oddly enough, I had gone to SF with a gay coworker, so I wondered how he was going to respond, but he laughed.)

Since then, "you know that" has become one of my phrases. You knew that Liberace was gay. You knew that Pee Wee Herman (Paul Rubenfeld, AKA Paul Rubens) was gay. Hell, my fiancee played with Paul Rubenfeld as a child and knew he was gay back then. You knewthat Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres were gay. You knewthat Pee Wee Herman was gay. You know that Mark Vollman and Howard Kaylan, originally from The Turtles, are gay and are a couple. You know George Takei is gay. If you saw K.D. Lang as little more than a speck on the ice at the Calgary Olympics for the first time, you knew she was gay after five seconds. You know that John Cleese is the strictly heterosexual member of Monty Python.

You don't always know it, and sometimes it doesn't work. Maybe you didn't know that Rock Hudson was gay, but you suspected. Maybe even now you don't know which of the members of The Village People are heterosexual. But still, you know these things to a good 90% confidence level, and you can verify it with the evidence at least as well as you can with anything else in the social sciences. Make a list and, over the next 20 years, see who comes out. Be sure to count the misses as well as the hits, and include false negatives as well as false positives. You'll still come out pretty good, if you have any observational skills at all.

However, if you care what other people think, you have to pretend that you don't know it, because if you admit that you know it, then people will get angry at you and contemptuous of you and call you names. You have to maintain the fiction.

Maintaining the fiction, however, has a problem, because if you actually believe it, then it will get in the way of attempts to find sex partners. You have to lie but also lie to yourself about the fact that you're lying. People usually do this by inventing a new concept and pretending that it's totally different from the old concept. In this case, the concept is called "gaydar."

[epepke]

As a non-straight guy myself, I also have to come out (so to speak) and say that I think Iamme has a point, although he only halfway articulates it, and his gay stereotypes are about fifteen years out of date. I think those who defensively declare that there is absolutely no correlation between sexual preference and behavior are either not very observant or in denial.

I'd like to expand on your refreshingly inquisitive approach here.

I have known many, many gay guys as well, and possibly even more lesbians.

One thing I have found is that they're generally more interesting than heterosexuals. The word I use for this is "foami," from a language that a friend and I invented in High School. It means weird in a good sense. Gays seem to be better read and more likely to know about something that I am interested in. They seem to be more willing to entertain unusual ideas. Perhaps the act of "coming out" breaks some kind of chain to society and frees the person who does it to do unusual things.

The counterargument to this would be the city of Atlanta. Practically every gay is "out" there, but most of the gays I met were such dullards that they make Midwesterners seem positively scintillating by comparison.

Another is that they tend to be more incisive and honest about heterosexuality than heterosexuals are. If I run across a heterosexual male who is having a hard time with women, I frequently recommend befriending a nice lesbian, who will give a lot of good information. (The same is probably true for women and gay men, but since I'm not a woman, I don't know much about that.)

The contraindication for this would be the "political lesbians" who don't seem to understand heterosexuality any better than Rush Limbaugh understands homelessness.

In fact, if I can go off on a tangent here, it makes me wonder if there aren't two separate types of homosexuality -- maybe some people are gay because of biology and some are gay because of environment? Or because of separate biological factors? That could be one possible explanation for the significant, but not perfect, correlation between sexual preference and demeanor.

Or perhaps even a continuum. Of the lesbians I have known, quite a few eventually settled on heterosexuality and became almost Norman Rockwell figures. I haven't seen many gay men do that, but I have seen some who have talked about some traumatic experiences in early childhood. And of course there's the whole "metrosexual" thing.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I always wanted to ask the openly gay people on this forum--do you find "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" offensive?

I don't watch TV at all, yet I have heard of this show.

I'm not part of the sub-culture of going around being offended, though the whole world tends to offend me.

I don't like the term "queer" but I accept the world. I'd better.

[Abdul Alhazred]

You should apply for the JREF prize.


Stop being silly, Mark. I have already explained "gaydar" and it's not paranormal, even if it's not always conscience.

[The elementalist]

Gay people ruin same sex family relationships, but oh well, something else to fix in the world. Give the God heads some extra progressive practice.

[LostAngeles]

George Takei is gay? Meh. It doesn't change his hotness or my deep-seated love for him.

Um... Eartha Kitt gay? Maybe? Maybe?

[Ducky]

Gay people ruin same sex family relationships, but oh well, something else to fix in the world. Give the God heads some extra progressive practice.


Please provide some actual data evidence on this, and not your own testimonial about how your gay lifestyle ruined your family. I would like to see actual research on this claim.

[epepke]

George Takei is gay? Meh. It doesn't change his hotness or my deep-seated love for him.

He's a really happening frood anyway. I did get to show him my phaser once. Besides, most women didn't worry about whether Liberace was gay.

Um... Eartha Kitt gay? Maybe? Maybe?

Probably bi.

[davefoc]

epepke wrote: Since then, "you know that" has become one of my phrases. You knew that Liberace was gay. You knew that Pee Wee Herman (Paul Rubenfeld, AKA Paul Rubens) was gay. Hell, my fiancee played with Paul Rubenfeld as a child and knew he was gay back then. You knewthat Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres were gay. You knewthat Pee Wee Herman was gay. You know that Mark Vollman and Howard Kaylan, originally from The Turtles, are gay and are a couple. You know George Takei is gay. If you saw K.D. Lang as little more than a speck on the ice at the Calgary Olympics for the first time, you knew she was gay after five seconds. You know that John Cleese is the strictly heterosexual member of Monty Python.

Hmm, for what it's worth

Liberace - I wasn't sure before the revelations but now I assume that Liberace type behavior is indicative of homosexuality

Pee Wee Herman - hate to admit this but I didn't realize he was homosexual. I knew he was in trouble for masturbating in theater and for collecting pornography featuring children.

Rosie O'Donell - had no clue until the rumors started. Still wasn't sure until she admitted it.

Ellen de Generis - also had no clue until the rumors started

George Takei - never even crossed my mind, but now that you mention it, it seems plausible.

John Cleese - I would have been very surprised if he had been a homosexual, but nobody else in Monte Python seemed particularly homosexual to me.

Rock Hudson - I had absolutely no clue, I may have heard rumors before the revelations were made but I think I just thought they were ridiculous and ignored them.

So it looks like my celebrity gaydar is highly ineffective.

I think though that when I meet people in person I have a much better record. Although a close member of our family is gay and I never suspected it, but with hind sight I probably should have. He was much more comfortable with women than I ever was. He had many women friends I attributed this to his greater sophistication and social skills. He had a more gentle outlook on life than I was used to in men, but he also exhibited none of the obvious gay behaviors.

[Meadmaker]

About 15 years ago, a girlfriend of mine and I walked into a restaurant that was new in town. We live in Detroit suburbs. This place was called "Malibu". After we were seated and the waiter introduced himself, we were looking around this new place and I asked my girlfriend, "So, do you think any of the waiters here are heterosexual?" She agreed it wasn't likely. We figured the owner of the place was probably gay, and he hired gay people he knew as waiters.

It's possible that we were engaging in offensive stereotyping, but we were pretty darned certain that we weren't. (We left a good tip, and it became one of our favorite restaurants, but our opinions must not have been shared, because it didn't stay open.)

Stereotypes exist for a reason. I'm confident that, now that I am a member of a Jewish temple, and have been part of the Jewish community for several years, I could identify Jews at a rate far, far below 100%, but still better than chance, based on the transcripts of converstations, and possibly by appearance and mannerisms, even if the topics weren't religious, and no one was wearing obviously identifiable clothing or hairstyles. My "Jewdar" wouldn't be very effective, but it's better than rolling dice. I suspect that I could do the same for accountants, or Democrats, or gays, or Gen-Xers.

[The elementalist]

FOWLSOUND

It is possible, did I "mention" it happen? You are an idiot! I'm sure this happen though, you and your society can keep your bullsh*t pysconeurotic contradiction to yourself. This is FACTUAL! THIS CAN HAPPEN IN A RADAR LIKE SYSTEM!

HERE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO! open up to the world, and from there, you can have a logic based around applying past expereince to different scenarios. I could do with out homosexuality, but it is apart of the world!

I guess some one needs to stick something in your ass for a couple months, to see how mad you'll get when some half assed morn makes a statment such as yours.

[epepke]

FOWLSOUND

It is possible, did I "mention" it happen? You are an idiot! I'm sure this happen though, you and your society can keep your bullsh*t pysconeurotic contradiction to yourself. This is FACTUAL! THIS CAN HAPPEN IN A RADAR LIKE SYSTEM!

HERE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO! open up to the world, and from there, you can have a logic based around applying past expereince to different scenarios. I could do with out homosexuality, but it is apart of the world!

I guess some one needs to stick something in your ass for a couple months, to see how mad you'll get when some half assed morn makes a statment such as yours.

I really enjoy your contributions here. They remind me of another person whose extended name ended in "-ist," only without the Haldol.

[epepke]

Stereotypes exist for a reason. I'm confident that, now that I am a member of a Jewish temple, and have been part of the Jewish community for several years, I could identify Jews at a rate far, far below 100%, but still better than chance, based on the transcripts of converstations, and possibly by appearance and mannerisms, even if the topics weren't religious, and no one was wearing obviously identifiable clothing or hairstyles. My "Jewdar" wouldn't be very effective, but it's better than rolling dice. I suspect that I could do the same for accountants, or Democrats, or gays, or Gen-Xers.

So nu? You think you can identify Jews already? What makes you think you can identify Jews, you smarty-pants goy?

That reminds me of a joke, which is actually appropriate. A man is sitting on a bus in New York. A woman is looking at him and says, "Excuse me, are you Jewish?" He says, "No." She keeps looking at him and then says, "Come on, you have to be Jewish." He says, "No, I'm not Jewish." She looks for a while and says, "No, really. You have to be Jewish." In exasperation, he answers, "OK, lady, whatever. I'm Jewish." She answers, "That's funny. You don't look Jewish."

[Ducky]

FOWLSOUND

It is possible, did I "mention" it happen? You are an idiot! I'm sure this happen though, you and your society can keep your bullsh*t pysconeurotic contradiction to yourself. This is FACTUAL! THIS CAN HAPPEN IN A RADAR LIKE SYSTEM!

HERE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO! open up to the world, and from there, you can have a logic based around applying past expereince to different scenarios. I could do with out homosexuality, but it is apart of the world!

I guess some one needs to stick something in your ass for a couple months, to see how mad you'll get when some half assed morn makes a statment such as yours.


That had all the logical coherence of a Mayday post! Perhaps you and Mayday can continue the world's great heterosexual society, though we'd have to have proof she's a woman and you're a man. It's possible that's reversed.

Look here, kid, what you've done is make a monumentally stupid assertion. You stated that gay people ruin same sex family relationships. As any skeptic will do when faced with an assumption such as that, I asked for evidence. Not anecdotal evidence either, I prefer study data. Polls, interviews, and in this case I'd even accept a meta-analysis. You responded with a blathering foaming at the mouth strain of what can only be described as complete insanity.

Since you don't have any data to back up this statement, I will gladly ask you retract your assertion that it is "FACTUAL" as you have clearly not shown it to be so.

I await your (most assuredly) idiotic response.

Let's see the evidence, gomer.

[Mephisto]

Ah, the questions we ponder often reveal more of us than we'd normally do otherwise -
_______

Why do construction workers act the way they do?

Why do Indians act the way they do?

Why are some bikers like . . . really scary, while others (the ones with the little hats) are just gay?

Aren't all sailors gay? I mean, just look at the uniform!

Are all male hairdressers and interior decorators gay? Duh!

How many people here also believe that there are NO GAYS in the military (minus the Navy, of course)?

All gays are heathens. I mean . . . you can't pray to a God who has condemmed your lifestyle in his holiest of books . . . can you?

I just want to know who else also doesn't mind gays as long as they don't act gay in front of me?

[username]

I just want to know who else also doesn't mind gays as long as they don't act gay in front of me?

I dislike gays who I refer to as 'dirty gays'. Folks who display their sexuality openly, brazenly and do so in places where everyone else tones things down, such as in an office environment.

I also dislike 'dirty heteros' who do the same thing.

There is a time and place for everything. If I am hanging around some nightlife scene where people are drinking, dancing and looking to find someone to share a bed with for the night or an hour I don't care if one is gay/bi/straight.

If I am at the library and I see a person walk in looking and acting like they were at a party I dislike it regardless of their sexual orientation or gender.

It is a maturity/tact thing more than a sexual orientation thing.

[Meadmaker]

So nu? You think you can identify Jews already? What makes you think you can identify Jews, you smarty-pants goy?


That's funny.

I read a joke in the same book where I read the joke you posted. (Isaac Asmiov's guide to humor.) It involves a Jew trying to sneak into an anti-semitic country club, where everyone knew they didn't admit Jews. He took off all Jewish clothing, changed his hairstyle, change his name, but when the interviewer asked, "Uh, Mr. O'Leary, can I ask, just for our records, what is your religion?" Mr. "O'Leary" said, "I am of the goyish faith."

[Mephisto]

I dislike gays who I refer to as 'dirty gays'. Folks who display their sexuality openly, brazenly and do so in places where everyone else tones things down, such as in an office environment.

I agree. There are certain times when sexual behavior of any type isn't appropriate, but then the problem isn't specifically gays, but brazen sexual behavior. I happen know people who have objected to gays behavior (affectionate, NOT brazenly sexual) in their own home.

We were at a holiday get together with my wife's co-workers and the party was divided equally among gay and straight people. The problem was, a small fraction of the straight people included those who had NO IDEA that anyone in the room was gay until the homeowners embraced in the kitchen. A scuffle ensued and the drunken religious people were expelled.

Obviously, THEY had a problem with gays as well as gays showing affection in the privacy of their own home amongst friends. It also dispels the notion that all gays "act gay" or that anyone can accurately determine who is gay by the color of their socks.

You should make it clear that you don't like "dirty" people and that sexuality has nothing to do with it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elementalist, I was going to give you a mild moderator warning about calling Fowlsound an "idiot!" with an exclamation point, but I can't stop laughing at your post, so I figure there's really no point.

~~ Paul

[Mid]

...snip...
This is FACTUAL! THIS CAN HAPPEN IN A RADAR LIKE SYSTEM!
...snip...

Ok I was going to ignore this but what on earth is "a radar like system" supposed to mean in the context of this post?

[TragicMonkey]

I dislike gays who I refer to as 'dirty gays'. Folks who display their sexuality openly, brazenly and do so in places where everyone else tones things down, such as in an office environment.

What sort of thing are you talking about, though? "Brazen display" could mean anything from holding hands to dry humping.

[The elementalist]

why not try to be creative with your mind, instead of expressing vision with little pictures of dragons, try to see what some one else is thinking.

It doesn't have be a radar, who gives a hell what it is, if its an arm that rotates or a beam of energy that pulls in stimuli...You guys are so narrow minded.

[The elementalist]

Fowl, you are practicualy asking to ahve your life messed up by homosexuality.

and yes, hearing with your olfaction is awesome. better in the thalmus to auido area, than through ears.

[Regnad Kcin]

Good thing "The elementalist" didn't name his/herself "The linguist".

[Terry]

Good thing "The elementalist" didn't name his/herself "The linguist".

Not cunning enough?

--Terry.

[Mephisto]

It doesn't have be a radar, who gives a hell what it is, if its an arm that rotates or a beam of energy that pulls in stimuli...You guys are so narrow minded.

Hey, I knew all the time what you meant! I've talked to that homeless guy with all the coat hangers and tin foil attached to his head!

[luchog]

what would you say about a show like "jewish Eye for the Gentile Guy" (five jewish lawyers/bankers arrange a guy's investments protfolio to yield far higher results)
I'd pay to see that.

[Ducky]

Fowl, you are practicualy asking to ahve your life messed up by homosexuality.

and yes, hearing with your olfaction is awesome. better in the thalmus to auido area, than through ears.


How exactly is my life going to be messed up by homosexuality?

You're a moron. Seriously.

I beg the FSM you never breed.

[epepke]

I read a joke in the same book where I read the joke you posted. (Isaac Asmiov's guide to humor.) It involves a Jew trying to sneak into an anti-semitic country club, where everyone knew they didn't admit Jews. He took off all Jewish clothing, changed his hairstyle, change his name, but when the interviewer asked, "Uh, Mr. O'Leary, can I ask, just for our records, what is your religion?" Mr. "O'Leary" said, "I am of the goyish faith."

Pretty good.

While we're on the subject, I saw a good one in one of the Woody Allen movies, though I forget which one. Maybe Hannah and her Sisters?

Anyway, Woody plays a cultural Jew that has been raised more-or-less agnostic. He has a religious crisis and is exploring. One of the religions he explores is Catholicism. He goes out and shops and brings home a paper sack. Out of it he reverently withdraws

A crucifix
A picture of Mary
A votive candle
A loaf of Wonder bread
A jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise

[Freakshow]

Pretty good.

While we're on the subject, I saw a good one in one of the Woody Allen movies, though I forget which one. Maybe Hannah and her Sisters?

Anyway, Woody plays a cultural Jew that has been raised more-or-less agnostic. He has a religious crisis and is exploring. One of the religions he explores is Catholicism. He goes out and shops and brings home a paper sack. Out of it he reverently withdraws

A crucifix
A picture of Mary
A votive candle
A loaf of Wonder bread
A jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise
OK, call me dense if you want, but...I don't get it. What am I missing?

[Cleon]

I beg the FSM you never breed.

(Insert joke about noodly appendages here.)

[epepke]

OK, call me dense if you want, but...I don't get it. What am I missing?

What you're probably missing is having grown up in Manhattan. Everyone in Manhattan is both Jewish and Catholic, even if they aren't. Maybe some irreverant Jews outside of Manhattan would get it. I've told it to several recovering Catholics, and they don't get it.

Explaining a joke, of course, ruins it. I will proceed to do so. SPOILERS AHEAD.

As a New Yorker, a quarter Jew, and an irreverant type, I'm allowed to say this. You can talk about Judaism in a lot of ways, but one way of talking about it is that Judaism is based on three things:

1) Getting your weenus trimmed.
2) Bread.
3) Things you eat with other things, including bread.

Bread isn't just part of some silly food rules; it occupies a position of as central importance of Judaism as the resurrection is to Christians. Really.

During Easter, goyim kids hunt for eggs, which is of course a pagan tradition, eggs being symbols of fertility and all. About the same time, Jews have to get rid of all their bread and everything that remotely resembles bread, and they can only eat special bread. During Channukah, Jew kids get to hunt for little hidden pieces of bread.

The special bread is, of course, the matzoh. Jews worked hard over thousands of years to develop the kind of unleavened bread that, alone in world culture, tastes the most like cardboard. You can make a delicious tortilla in a couple of minutes, or a delicious chapati in not much longer, but Jews have developed an elaborate process of making cardboard-tasing bread in 17 minutes, which is the maximum time they allow themselves.

Such is the central importance of the matzoh that, even when they don't have to, Jews eat it, disguising the taste with salt, garlic, onions, poppy seeds, and even some egg in the batter. I myself have been known to spread a matzoh with peanut butter and cayenne pepper. Jews eat another kind of bread, called "challah," on the Sabbath. Of course, when Jews really cut loose, they go for bagels or even the quasi-goyisch rye bread.

So a sterotypical cultural Jew would naturally see Catholicism in terms of Wonder bread and Hellmann's mayonnaise.

[Mid]

How exactly is my life going to be messed up by homosexuality?
...snip...


Maybe it's like in the movie Candy Man, if you type "I believe in gay marriage" enough times into the forum whilst sitting in a darkened room something spooky and scary will happen like, erm, the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy will come around and make you look stupid on national TV :D

[Camillus]

About three years ago we recruited a lot of nurses from the Phillipines. There was about an even split of male/female but almost universally the men, once in London, behaved in a stereotypically gay fashion. Unsuprisingly almost all of them are gay and are quite open about it.

About a year ago I had a conversation with a female Filipino nurse who said to me "I don't know what this country does to our men but none of them are gay at home."

I leave of you to make of that what you will, but it tells me that behaviour is entirely under the control of the individual and that gay men, whether open or not, behave the way they do for social rather than biological reasons.

[Cleon]

About a year ago I had a conversation with a female Filipino nurse who said to me "I don't know what this country does to our men but none of them are gay at home."

I leave of you to make of that what you will, but it tells me that behaviour is entirely under the control of the individual and that gay men, whether open or not, behave the way they do for social rather than biological reasons.

It tells me that she was probably pulling your leg.

[Camillus]

It tells me that she was probably pulling your leg.

Perhaps so, but given how well I know her and her general naivete about, and avoidance of worldly matters, (her only reason for not being a nun was that her family relied on her to bring home money) I am inclined to believe she was at least semi-serious.

[Mephisto]

Pretty good.

While we're on the subject, I saw a good one in one of the Woody Allen movies, though I forget which one. Maybe Hannah and her Sisters?

Anyway, Woody plays a cultural Jew that has been raised more-or-less agnostic. He has a religious crisis and is exploring. One of the religions he explores is Catholicism. He goes out and shops and brings home a paper sack. Out of it he reverently withdraws

A crucifix
A picture of Mary
A votive candle
A loaf of Wonder bread
A jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise

Ha! That was Hannah & Her Sisters. I especially liked the enigmatic scene with Jesus on the cross opening and closing his eyes. You don't really know what's going on until the camera backs away from one of those really kitch 3D pictures in the window of the Catholic Store and Woody Allen stepping side to side.

[Mephisto]

Maybe it's like in the movie Candy Man, if you type "I believe in gay marriage" enough times into the forum whilst sitting in a darkened room something spooky and scary will happen like, erm, the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy will come around and make you look stupid on national TV :D

Whoa! I thought you meant that if I stood in front of a mirror in a darkened room and say, "I'm homophobic, I'm homophobic, I'm homophobic" a gay man would appear behind me with a large tootsie roll!

[Mephisto]

I leave of you to make of that what you will, but it tells me that behaviour is entirely under the control of the individual and that gay men, whether open or not, behave the way they do for social rather than biological reasons.

Funny, I've heard the same comments made about pasty White guys and Rap music. I'm not a fan of rap music at all, but I understand that it's a changing force in the music of today. Apparently, it has the ability to change young White guys with red hair and freckles into ghetto-stomping, Ho-mongering, $hit-talking, Gangstas with mo bling than you could shake a shotgun at. What is it that modern society does to the young anyway? Give them a choice?

[Darat]

I think most gay people who act "gay" do it for all the same types of reasons that anyone of a labeled "sub group"acts in a particular way e.g. acceptance, defiance, wanting to be be noticed, wanting to stand out of a crowd and so on.

The fact this type of behaviour is considered noteworthy of homosexuals is just a reflection on the fact that homosexuality is still not "accepted" by the majority of people.

I find it no more offense then say a woman who acts like a "little princesses" (as my grandmother used to describe them) e.g. in an overtly "stereotypical" way for a woman.

[Darat]

...snip...

I leave of you to make of that what you will, but it tells me that behaviour is entirely under the control of the individual and that gay men, whether open or not, behave the way they do for social rather than biological reasons.

I agree with you. However you've then also got to realise that the behaviour we say is "normal male" is again for the most part a social choice. I'll give you an example: I spent quite a while in Algeria when I was younger, over there it was perfectly normal male behaviour for adult men to walk around holding hands or even linked. Yet take that behaviour to a street in the UK and the assumption would be that the two men are acting in a "gay" way.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I agree with you. However you've then also got to realise that the behaviour we say is "normal male" is again for the most part a social choice. I'll give you an example: I spent quite a while in Algeria when I was younger, over there it was perfectly normal male behaviour for adult men to walk around holding hands or even linked. Yet take that behaviour to a street in the UK and the assumption would be that the two men are acting in a "gay" way.

Or maybe all the men in Algeria are gay? :con2:

[username]

What sort of thing are you talking about, though? "Brazen display" could mean anything from holding hands to dry humping.

I was refering to a previous post I made where I mentioned a guy in the office I work in who is gay and regularly wears tight, shiny leather pants in the office. He dresses for the office like I would imagine he would when going clubbing.

He gets away with it only because he is a. gay and b. the president of the local gay/lesbian alliance. Nobody wants to confront him over his lack of adherance to the dress code out of fear of a lawsuit.

While he may get away with it, there are very few people who appreciate it.

[Spidey13]

and yes, hearing with your olfaction is awesome. better in the thalmus to auido area, than through ears.


Wait, wait, wait, hold on just one minute!!!!

I've always wondered about fowlsound's nickname. Let's break it down, shall we? "Fowl" means "bird." However, if you spell it "foul" it means "stinky." So, fowlsounds name could mean "stinky sound."

Now, we have The elementalist going on about "hearing with olfaction" which would mean smelling sounds.

OH MY ***** GOD, THE ELEMENTALIST IS FOWLSOUND'S SOCK PUPPET!!!

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

;)

:D

ETA: More smilies

[Mephisto]

(Insert joke about noodly appendages here.)

Yeah, I'm still giggling about that one too! God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?

[TragicMonkey]

I was refering to a previous post I made where I mentioned a guy in the office I work in who is gay and regularly wears tight, shiny leather pants in the office. He dresses for the office like I would imagine he would when going clubbing.

He gets away with it only because he is a. gay and b. the president of the local gay/lesbian alliance. Nobody wants to confront him over his lack of adherance to the dress code out of fear of a lawsuit.

While he may get away with it, there are very few people who appreciate it.

Well, you're not really objecting to his display of his sexuality, are you? You're objecting, quite rightly, on his violating the dress code. I'm hoping you'd object just as strongly if a straight person came in to work dressed like that.

[Ducky]

It is a well known fact that if I were to have a suckpuppet, it would be tkingdoll and I would have it declare it['s love for me and my music ;)

Wait, wait, wait, hold on just one minute!!!!

I've always wondered about fowlsound's nickname. Let's break it down, shall we? "Fowl" means "bird." However, if you spell it "foul" it means "stinky." So, fowlsounds name could mean "stinky sound."

Now, we have The elementalist going on about "hearing with olfaction" with would mean smelling sounds.

OH MY ***** GOD, THE ELEMENTALIST IS FOWLSOUND'S SOCK PUPPET!!!

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

;)

:D

ETA: More smilies

[Terry]

Was that a typo?

--Terry.

ETA This: "suckpuppet" I mean...

T.

[tkingdoll]

It is a well known fact that if I were to have a suckpuppet, it would be tkingdoll and I would have it declare it['s love for me and my music ;)

It? IT?!! I'm not an IT! I'm a THAT!

[Ducky]

It? IT?!! I'm not an IT! I'm a THAT!


Most assuredly you are a THAT not an IT, my apologies.


(Ps, Terry, why would you think it was a typo? ;) )

[Terry]

(Ps, Terry, why would you think it was a typo? ;) )

Just checking, just checking.


--Terry.

[epepke]

Well, you're not really objecting to his display of his sexuality, are you? You're objecting, quite rightly, on his violating the dress code. I'm hoping you'd object just as strongly if a straight person came in to work dressed like that.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure of that.

I think the subtext, though, was that he got away with it because of being loudly gay and, if challenged, would likely assert that he was being discriminated against for being homophobic.

The trouble with this is that, whenever someone pulls this kind of special pleading, especially someone who has special pull in the Lesbigay Alliance or whatever it's called locally, then it makes the stereotypes more virulent.

I must admit that I used to own shiny leather trousers, which I used to wear with a leather vest, a black silk shirt, a grey leather tie, and a black leather jacket cut like a single-breasted suit jacket. Due to my various changes of location, though, these got damaged in storage. I used to wear them all the time, but it wouldn't even occur to me to wear them to work, let alone try to justify such usage by virtue of being queer.

[TragicMonkey]

I think the subtext, though, was that he got away with it because of being loudly gay and, if challenged, would likely assert that he was being discriminated against for being homophobic.

The trouble with this is that, whenever someone pulls this kind of special pleading, especially someone who has special pull in the Lesbigay Alliance or whatever it's called locally, then it makes the stereotypes more virulent.


Unfortunately, there are people like that, who will use their membership in some group as a way to gain unfair advantage by terrorizing people into putting up with them lest they be acccused of insensitivity.


I think the important thing to remember is that anybody can be a jerk. Even people in wheelchairs, although you'll get some really nasty looks if you're caught screaming at someone in a wheelchair. Which is actually pretty patronizing to the handicapped, because special treatment is actually taking away from their human right to be a complete jerk.

eta: But still, I can never go back to that restaurant.

[epepke]

I think the important thing to remember is that anybody can be a jerk. Even people in wheelchairs, although you'll get some really nasty looks if you're caught screaming at someone in a wheelchair. Which is actually pretty patronizing to the handicapped, because special treatment is actually taking away from their human right to be a complete jerk.

I think Terry Pratchett said it best. Unfortunately, I can't remember what he said.

[TragicMonkey]

I think Terry Pratchett said it best. Unfortunately, I can't remember what he said.

I was totally going to quote him on that, but I couldn't remember which book. It was something Vimes said, or was said about Vimes. I love Vimes. Him and Nanny Ogg.

[epepke]

I was totally going to quote him on that, but I couldn't remember which book. It was something Vimes said, or was said about Vimes. I love Vimes. Him and Nanny Ogg.

Yeah, I think it was Vimes, but I think it was attributed to him by another constable. It was something like "just because someone is a member of an oppressed and misunderstood minority doesn't meant he isn't the scum of the earth."

Still, while I know that jerks exist, and in general there's not much that can be done about that, I am still not amused when large Gay Pride parades invite NAMBLA to march. NAMBLA, like the KKK, have a right to march on their own, but they don't have a right to get invited. Similarly, jerks who wear leather trousers to work and sexually harass coworkers don't have a right to get to be the head of a gay alliance. In a properly run commonwealth, they would be told, gently yet firmly, that while they are welcome to stay on as troops, they don't get publically to play bwana any more.

[LW]

Aren't all sailors gay? I mean, just look at the uniform!

''The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery, and the lash." -- Winston Churchill, 1912.

[Mephisto]

''The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery, and the lash." -- Winston Churchill, 1912.

Be careful there! You're going to piss off the last country in the coalition of the willing. No fair using their own words against them either!

[LW]

Be careful there! You're going to piss off the last country in the coalition of the willing. No fair using their own words against them either!

Suits me, I'm not in the coalition.

Actually, looking back the history it is a little bit disheartening to note that the only country thas has been allied with Finland and that wasn't completely reprehensible at the time was Kaiser's Germany.

[Mark]

''The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery, and the lash." -- Winston Churchill, 1912.

Combined, I wonder?!?!?!

[Cleon]

Combined, I wonder?!?!?!

Only if they're doing it right. ;)

[Regnad Kcin]

Good thing "The elementalist" did not name his/herself "The linguist".Not cunning enough?Bite your tongue.

[Mephisto]

Suits me, I'm not in the coalition.

Actually, looking back the history it is a little bit disheartening to note that the only country thas has been allied with Finland and that wasn't completely reprehensible at the time was Kaiser's Germany.

It shouldn't be disheartening, Finland is probably one of the last of the truly neutral countries. You're just lucky you didn't snub us too publicly when we asked you if you'd like to be mired in the Muslim quagmire of Iraq - we'd have made fun of the food we're stupid enough to believe you invented (so Finland Fries would become Freedom Fries), and our conservative journalists (and I use that term lightly) would make jokes about the people of your country as well as the policies of your government that require using a brain.

[Mephisto]

Only if they're doing it right. ;)

Sounds like Saturday night on the H.M.S. S&M.

[The elementalist]

Gays act gay because they either have alot of estrogen and testostrone reactions, or they envelope in a female chemistry, being negative or positive right along with woman, when a womanly subject comes up, or they wax womanhood.

Basically a womans chemical compostions reaction mixed with a mans, makes them react like a god dang weirdo.

Shhh or hahaha

doesn't matter, huh?

[Terry]

Gays act gay because they either have alot of estrogen and testostrone reactions, or they envelope in a female chemistry,[...]

Got any evidence for that, buddy?

Actually, first explain what the [rule 8] that even means!


--Terry.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Actually, first explain what the [rule 8] that even means!You're not asking for coherence from the boy, are you?

[rustypouch]

4. To make bigoted jerks uncomfortable :).



I do that, and I am not gay.

[Skeptic]

Combined, I wonder?!?!?!

Thank you for that mental image, Mark.

It should fade out of my consciousness in, oh, two or three months.

[Mark]

Thank you for that mental image, Mark.

It should fade out of my consciousness in, oh, two or three months.

Head hung in shame but with slight giggles escaping from pursed lips... :)

[Mephisto]

Basically a womans chemical compostions reaction mixed with a mans, makes them react like a god dang weirdo.

Yeah, isn't that the disease that both Bea Arthur and Omarosa have? What is that called, Testiculitus or Gonadorosis or something like that. Good to meet someone with a background in both biology and chemistry!

[luchog]

Still, while I know that jerks exist, and in general there's not much that can be done about that, I am still not amused when large Gay Pride parades invite NAMBLA to march. NAMBLA, like the KKK, have a right to march on their own, but they don't have a right to get invited. Similarly, jerks who wear leather trousers to work and sexually harass coworkers don't have a right to get to be the head of a gay alliance. In a properly run commonwealth, they would be told, gently yet firmly, that while they are welcome to stay on as troops, they don't get publically to play bwana any more.
I don't think I've ever heard of any large Gay Pride event inviting NAMBLA or similar groups. I know there has been some minor controversy in at least a few cities, including mine, regarding NAMBLA claiming that they were being unfairly excluded by organizers who refused to allow them to march.

I'm lucky that I work in an office where the only dress code is "wear clothing"; and some of my managers will come to work looking like they just got back from hanging out at a nightclub.

[epepke]

I don't think I've ever heard of any large Gay Pride event inviting NAMBLA or similar groups. I know there has been some minor controversy in at least a few cities, including mine, regarding NAMBLA claiming that they were being unfairly excluded by organizers who refused to allow them to march.

Oh, I have. Heard of large Gay Pride organizations inviting and allowing NAMBLA to march.

I think it's good that most Gay Pride parades recently have been excluding NAMBLA.

But I do wonder about your use of the word "controversy." Is this really a controvery? I think so, and I think that is in and of itself, a problem.

I found this meliorative view on the "controversy" on the first page of a google search: http://www.webcom.com/erique/writing/pride.html

Yes, even NAMBLA have just as much right to march in a parade as Dignity and the Spruce Street Singers. Now if someone actively would like to prevent any of these groups from fulfilling their goals, he has the option to lobby against their legal efforts. But no one has a right to prevent the group from existing, or from displaying their pride in a parade that celebrates it.

Admittedly, this essay is from fifteen years ago. On the other hand, I don't see any gay-positive organizations refraining from talking about opinions that people have expressed fifteen, thirty, or hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Now, one could argue that this says that a gay pride parade merely celebrates NAMBLA's right to exist. Betcha a nickel, though, that no gay pride ever has celebrated Focus on the Family's right to exist, let alone the Hitler Youth. This does not happen.

[Mephisto]

Oh, I have. Heard of large Gay Pride organizations inviting and allowing NAMBLA to march.

I think it's good that most Gay Pride parades recently have been excluding NAMBLA.

Now, one could argue that this says that a gay pride parade merely celebrates NAMBLA's right to exist. Betcha a nickel, though, that no gay pride ever has celebrated Focus on the Family's right to exist, let alone the Hitler Youth. This does not happen.

I'm straight, but not narrow and I can't imagine any Gay Pride organization inviting NAMBLA to march with them. I think that would be as detrimental to the gay cause as the Republican Party inviting the Aryan Nations to a Family Values convention.

I don't understand WHY you would expect a gay pride organization to celebrate a "Focus on the Family" event. Isn't that a bit like expecting Louis Farrakan to invite skinheads to the million man march? I also don't see what the Hitler Youth robots have to do with gay pride (unless it's the Facist uniforms).

[Glenn]

I am still not amused when large Gay Pride parades invite NAMBLA to march. NAMBLA, like the KKK, have a right to march on their own, but they don't have a right to get invited.
Oh, I have. Heard of large Gay Pride organizations inviting and allowing NAMBLA to march. You are absolutely wrong.

Every major gay pride parade bans NAMBLA. Every major gay rights group condemns them.

It is possible you're confusing some issues here. Here's a brief history, which should help you:

Harry Hay, one of the first outspoken fighters for gay rights in the U.S. in the 40s to 60s, did many great things at the inception of the modern gay rights movement, but unfortunately he was also later a vocal supporter of NAMBLA. He got them to march in the major San Francisco gay parade in the early 80s (when gay pride marches/parades began in earnest) -- at which point the parade organizers explicitly and permanently banned NAMBLA.

The organizers of the other major parades/marches (such as L.A., D.C., NYC) also banned them. In the major 1986 parade in Los Angeles, Hay was honored for his vital pioneering activism of the 40s-60s, but because he was upset about the ban against NAMBLA, he surprised people by unveiling a sweatshirt that read "NAMBLA marches with me" -- even though none were actually permitted to march with him.

Now and then some individuals have leapt into a parade with a homemade "NAMBLA" sign, but in a crowd of tens or hundreds of thousands, where anyone is permitted to step into the march along the route, it is difficult to prevent such crashing -- although in those instances they have been removed.

In 1994, Hay refused to march in the major NYC parade celebrating the 25th anniversary of the historic Stonewall riots, because of the NAMBLA ban. He instead joined a small, competing march that included NAMBLA and a couple fringe groups, which was shunned by all the mainstream gay groups. They of course had the right to have their own little march, as does the KKK, as you point out.

Although every major city's gay pride parades have banned NAMBLA since they tried joining in the mid 80s, some jurisdictions did not legally permit the banning of unwanted groups from participating in public events -- which these parades/marches were considered to be in some jurisdictions. Thus, even though NAMBLA was not welcome, and certainly not "invited" as you claim, the law required they be permitted in a few jurisdictions. Fortunately, that changed in 1995 when the Supreme Court set a precedent with its ruling on the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC. With that ruling, the few remaining iffy jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle) were finally able to have parades and legally ban NAMBLA, starting in 1996.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you've had.

[Hardenbergh]

You are absolutely wrong.

Every major gay pride parade bans NAMBLA. Every major gay rights group condemns them.

It is possible you're confusing some issues here. Here's a brief history, which should help you:

Harry Hay, one of the first outspoken fighters for gay rights in the U.S. in the 40s to 60s, did many great things at the inception of the modern gay rights movement, but unfortunately he was also later a vocal supporter of NAMBLA. He got them to march in the major San Francisco gay parade in the early 80s (when gay pride marches/parades began in earnest) -- at which point the parade organizers explicitly and permanently banned NAMBLA.

The organizers of the other major parades/marches (such as L.A., D.C., NYC) also banned them. In the major 1986 parade in Los Angeles, Hay was honored for his vital pioneering activism of the 40s-60s, but because he was upset about the ban against NAMBLA, he surprised people by unveiling a sweatshirt that read "NAMBLA marches with me" -- even though none were actually permitted to march with him.

Now and then some individuals have leapt into a parade with a homemade "NAMBLA" sign, but in a crowd of tens or hundreds of thousands, where anyone is permitted to step into the march along the route, it is difficult to prevent such crashing -- although in those instances they have been removed.

In 1994, Hay refused to march in the major NYC parade celebrating the 25th anniversary of the historic Stonewall riots, because of the NAMBLA ban. He instead joined a small, competing march that included NAMBLA and a couple fringe groups, which was shunned by all the mainstream gay groups. They of course had the right to have their own little march, as does the KKK, as you point out.

Although every major city's gay pride parades have banned NAMBLA since they tried joining in the mid 80s, some jurisdictions did not legally permit the banning of unwanted groups from participating in public events -- which these parades/marches were considered to be in some jurisdictions. Thus, even though NAMBLA was not welcome, and certainly not "invited" as you claim, the law required they be permitted in a few jurisdictions. Fortunately, that changed in 1995 when the Supreme Court set a precedent with its ruling on the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC. With that ruling, the few remaining iffy jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle) were finally able to have parades and legally ban NAMBLA, starting in 1996.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you've had.

Many people despise the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) because they represented NAMBLA for their right to free speech in the Jeffrey Curley case.

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0013409.cfm

The ACLU, on the other hand, has supported the freedom of speech of NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a lawsuit in Massachusetts, where NAMBLA had posted material on its Web site on how to rape and murder young boys. Two men got the information - and did exactly that. The same ACLU that says people should go to jail for praying in a public school, says you can't hold NAMBLA accountable for what they say.

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0038064.cfm

[Glenn]

Many people despise the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) because they represented NAMBLA for their right to free speech in the Jeffrey Curley case.Sure, same was true when they represented the KKK, the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, the Krishnas, Oliver North, the National Socialist Party, etc., most for the exact same right.

The ACLU fights for one client: the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU fights all its cases for a higher principle, and individual cases that are horribly distasteful to most of us are necessary because our legal system is based on principle and precedent. It's both hypocritical and dangerous to say I'm for free speech, just not for the groups or individuals I find abhorrent. I sure feel that way sometimes... I also cringe at those cases, and I doubt I could ever do such work, but I also couldn't be a criminal defense attorney even though our legal system has got to have them.

As the ACLU says, "the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

But I understand.

[Glenn]

Some catch-up replies to various posts in this thread (Part 1 of 2):

Why do gays have to ACT like gays? Like how they are at nightclubs...how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.
Like why are they into neatly manicured facial hair?
Why do they like to arrange stuff in their apartments just so, like they may even put their toiletries and manicure tools all in perfect diagonal rows. [...]
You're surmising something about a vast group based on limited, selective experience with some members of that group, which is why your conclusion is preposterous and far off the mark. Gay people have only ONE thing in common with each other: they're attracted to members of the same gender. Period. There's nothing else gay people have in common with each other. Closest thing to another common factor is that most gay folks have experienced some forms of prejudice or discrimination (whether overt, covert, serious or minor) -- but so have most people in any group, so this isn't terribly unique.

I'm not being "PC" or blind as some here have suggested about others. I'm simply stating fact. If you're going to make generalizations, you better have compelling data to back it up. You do not.

Why does anyone need parades and rainbow flags? For what purpose?
Fair question. Symbols are a way for some people to communicate that they part of a group, where otherwise it wouldn't be known -- whether it's a religion, an ethnicity, or even a fan of a sports team. Think of it like wearing a cross or a Jewish star, or sporting a Puerto Rican or Red Sox flag, etc.

For some gay people, it's a way of fighting prejudice: study after study shows the single most effective way anti-gay sentiment is dissipated is by gay people coming out, allowing formerly prejudiced people to realize there's nothing to their prejudice. Symbols like rainbow flags are also a useful way of signaling support for gay equality, which is sadly still important in a world where much prejudice and hate openly exists. (E.g., a church near me flies a rainbow flag among others; it's not a "gay church," but gay folks of that denomination know without having to investigate that they'd be fully welcome there and not have to endure being preached against.)

If ever there comes a time when little to no anti-gay prejudice exists, symbols like flags for the latter purpose will be pointless. But the former purpose (signaling that one's gay) will probably always be useful, at least for single people, since there's no other way for people to know right away who is gay. Unless you only want to meet people in all-gay venues (which is severely limited and not always conducive to serious relationship-building), it's quite difficult to figure out who might be available, given the odds are stacked 90-96% against.

Re marches/parades: personally, I think they've outworn their primary purpose. For a secondary reason I can understand why they're still good for some people. Let me explain:

In the 80s and 90s the marches/parades were enormously important political motivators. But in the past 5-10 years so much has changed that I don't think they're needed anymore that purpose; in some ways I wonder if they detract now. Nevertheless, they were hugely effective in showing great numbers and diversity of gay folks and their supporters, in getting people politically motivated, in improving business practices (lots of corporate involvement, which instigated much change in the corporate climate such as partner benefits, anti-discrimination policies, etc.), in giving gay people the courage and esteem to come out and live honestly, etc.

The secondary purpose they've served is to give gay people a single day or weekend to experience what it's like to be in a majority. It's a unique feeling that those in the majority naturally take for granted and might not be able to truly appreciate. Especially when you're just coming out, there is something unspeakably powerful and cathartic about walking down the street and knowing that pretty much nobody around you detests you for who you are, or judges you... indeed, they are all firmly with you. For many, there's a tremendous sense of comfort and joy for that one day. (Some might say gay bars offer the same thing, but how many people wanna hang out in bars? Quite different from walking around the mall in D.C.)

Also, for single gay folks it's an amazing relief not to have to assume everyone around you is unavailable by nature! While the odds of making the acquaintance of a lifelong love on a given weekend are low, it's still a far better chance than most gay folks get the rest of the year, especially if they don't live in a city. For gay people from suburban and rural areas, being in a city overcrowded with their own kind for a day is typically an amazingly life-changing and affirming experience.

However, I think this too is increasingly less true.

Yes one can tell most of the time, if you're looking for it. It's called 'gaydar'.
[...]
It's where the roving eyes are roving. I notice.
I was about to go off on the fallacy of "gaydar," but yes -- the ONLY way one has a periodically decent shot at discerning who might be gay (based solely on observing behavior) is to observe the person's eyes. It's not always accurate, but it's the ONLY thing that can actually tell you anything. Why? Because the ONLY thing gay people have in common is being attracted to members of their own gender. So if a man's eyes are primarily following good-looking men but not women, and more particularly, if that man's eyes are caught by good-looking men's sexiest features, there's a good chance. Of course, many straight men check each other out too, especially at the gym -- obviously the difference being it's not sexual, it's comparative. (Straight men: this confuses some gay men!) And lots of straight men care about how they look and are into fashion, so they check out other men's clothes. I'm a gay man who could not care less about fashion, as anyone who's seen me dress can attest, but I know many straight men who are, thus the "follow the eyes" method is often flawed, and clearly cannot be relied upon. And it's mostly useless with women.

Say you're a good-looking man. You're walking down the street and notice another man stealing glances at you. Maybe he looks you up and down as he passes. You notice in a reflection he even looks back after passing. Is he gay? Odds may be good. But you don't know. Maybe he thought you looked familiar and can't place it and it's driving him crazy. Maybe he thought what you're wearing is slick and he's considering getting similar threads. Maybe he's sizing you up to mug you. Maybe he thought you were looking at him. Who the hell knows? Maybe you're not good-looking after all. But if he does all that and whistles, odds are good he's gay (and you're good-looking).

I always wanted to ask the openly gay people on this forum--do you find "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" offensive?
Yeah, it ticks me off the rare times I give it a thought. Glad some people enjoy it, I'm against "PC" censorship, but personally it irritates me when people perpetuate myths and stereotypes, whether or not they're part of the group being stereotyped. I don't care that some people happen to fit stereotypes. In my experience most of us do not. I also don't care that some people think they're "nice" stereotypes. Being patronized is as onerous as being derided. I'm not into any of the crap the "Queer Eye" guys are into. I know more straight guys who are into their clothes and well appointed homes than gay guys. They're neater and more mature than I am. But I don't like people presuming weird and inaccurate things about me because of my sexuality.

It's like ignorant white morons patronizing Native Americans, assuming they must be so full of great wisdom and spiritual depth. Piss off. Some Native Americans play into that stereotype and make a killing at New Age conventions. Does it make the stereotype true or "kind"? Hell no. "Cheers" skewered the gay decorator stereotyping thing 20 years ago. Now five gay men are perpetuating it. Oh well, they're not as bad as Stepin Fetchit, and their day will pass too.

I'm not saying that "gaydar" is infallible, but there are times that you know someone is gay just from his general manner and deportment. No, you don't actually "know." You yourself pointed out examples where you would have thought you knew but would have been wrong. You never know without overt verification. And even though some people fit some stereotypes to some degree, that says nothing about the majority of gay people.

What I'm saying is that many gay men have mannerisms and behavior patterns that are clearly identifiable, and very few hetero men have those same mannerisms and behavior patterns.
Therefore, a man having those mannerisms and behavior patterns is probably gay.
[...]
I surmise [...] that the usual indicia I use, while highly reliable, are not perfect. "Highly reliable"?! What's your evidence that, on a percentage basis, "many" gay men act the way you describe and "very few" straight men do? What are your sample pools? From where are they drawn? You think "very few" straight men are in some way effeminate? Are you looking? I know more somewhat effeminate straight men than gay men, which statistically makes sense. There are some effeminate men who stick out more, who want to stick out and are more affected. But not many. And not all are gay.

...continued in next post...

[RandFan]

Sure, same was true when they represented the KKK, the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, the Krishnas, Oliver North, the National Socialist Party, etc., most for the exact same right. Well, to be fair you are comparing apples to oranges, unless I'm missing something. In the case referenced, the ACLU was defending the right to disseminate specific information on how to cause bodily harm to other individuals. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think the ACLU did that in any of the instances you list. I mean, I don't remember Oliver North suggesting to rape and murder anyone, did he? I consider myself a free speech proponent but the case of NAMBLA, like the Paladin "Hit Man" case, causes me some concern.

The ACLU fights for one client: the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU fights all its cases for a higher principle, and individual cases that are horribly distasteful to most of us are necessary because our legal system is based on principle and precedent. It's both hypocritical and dangerous to say I'm for free speech, just not for the groups or individuals I find abhorrent. I sure feel that way sometimes... I also cringe at those cases, and I doubt I could ever do such work, but I also couldn't be a criminal defense attorney even though our legal system has got to have them. I agree in principle but I'm not sure that in this case the ACLU consistently defends speech. The ACLU took an opposite position when it came to abortion protesters. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the ACLU chose not to support Paladin Press for "Hit Man" a case very similar to the NAMBLA one. I can't find a single thing said on behalf of Paladin by the ACLU.

As the ACLU says, "the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today." But the ACLU did not defend anti-abortion web sites that put the names of abortion doctors on their websites.

The ACLU does not defend each and every instance of suppressed speech. The ACLU does pick and choose which cases they will defend. That fact is demonstrable. One wonders why this case and not others.

Do you think there are any limits to free speech? Personally I think such limits should be very rare.

[Glenn]

(part 2 of 2)

But the entire slightly effeminate manner - the limp wrists and such - strike me as being somehow physiologically hard-wired "Hard-wiring" of mannerisms has no evidence or logic supporting it I know of in connection to sexual orientation. The reasons for any man being effeminate, gay or straight, must be examined to draw any conclusions. From all I've read, it apparently has more to do with "gender nonconformity," which isn't directly linked to sexual orientation. Several cultural and identification-based factors, some mentioned in this thread, seem likely to be at play. Note there are and have been cultures wherein most men would be considered by most Americans today as effeminate.

I think those who defensively declare that there is absolutely no correlation between sexual preference and behavior are either not very observant or in denial.
I have known many, many gay guys, and, while I agree that there is no universal gay demeanor, I have found a fairly strong correlation between being openly gay and, well, "swishiness," as others have called it. While a good portion of your subsequent analysis seems cogent, your opening here is questionable. Above I mentioned my different observations, yet am not defensive, dishonest or unobservant as you suggest.

I've observed and interacted with thousands of gay men and lesbians over the decades in political, professional, social and personal settings, all across the United States from urban to rural areas, spanning the spectrum from very "closeted" to very "out," of all ages (teens to senior citizens), and I must point out that my decades of plain observation directly and thoroughly contradict yours. Only a very small percentage of gay men seem to fit effeminate stereotypes. As do a small percentage of straight men. Stereotypical folks do tend to stick out and get noticed, both because of their differences and because some aim to stick out (of effeminate men who aim to stick out, i.e., affected, they're more often gay), but they've always been the vast minority in my experience. Out of curiosity I sent this question to a couple dozen folks who have interacted with huge numbers of gay people, and they all reported the same basic observation.

None of our personal observations proves much, but given the numbers and diversity I've observed, I find it highly doubtful your assessment could be right. It seems statistically dubious.

Maybe you didn't know that Rock Hudson was gay, but you suspected. [...] But still, you know these things to a good 90% confidence level, and you can verify it with the evidence at least as well as you can with anything else in the social sciences. Make a list and, over the next 20 years, see who comes out. Be sure to count the misses as well as the hits, and include false negatives as well as false positives. You'll still come out pretty good, if you have any observational skills at all. You're talking about mere behavior, not relative verifications like a man holding his partner's hand or discussing the house and dogs they co-own, right?

Okay, let's see you conduct your study. Not from the limited, self-selected pool of pop figures. Let's go to a DMV (where everyone has to pass through) and see how well you do. Doubt you come anywhere near your "90%" claim. But that's an implausible test, no way to verify. So let's go to random places I know some of the (out to somewhat out) gay folks -- some law firms, restaurants, companies, a retirement home, Jet Propulsion Lab, Disney, some social events, some state Congresses around the country, and see how well you do. Still bet you don't come close to half your "90%" claim. (And it's still a limited pool as it only involves out people.)

However, if you care what other people think, you have to pretend that you don't know it, because if you admit that you know it, then people will get angry at you and contemptuous of you and call you names. I see what you're saying, but I don't think you have to pretend anything. Nothing's wrong with the fact that certain things suggest a person's sexual orientation. But those certain things are not usually stereotypes. Some people fit some stereotypes. Not enough to really matter. The significant clues are how people react to those they find sexually attractive, and that goes for gay or straight folks.

One thing I have found is that they're generally more interesting than heterosexuals. The word I use for this is "foami," from a language that a friend and I invented in High School. It means weird in a good sense. Gays seem to be better read and more likely to know about something that I am interested in. They seem to be more willing to entertain unusual ideas. Perhaps the act of "coming out" breaks some kind of chain to society and frees the person who does it to do unusual things. Maybe you've gotta get out more! No, seriously, somewhat in line with what you're saying, for some gay folks -- especially from sheltered settings -- the mere fact of being gay can force them to branch out in ways their straight siblings might not be forced to. And being gay often forces people to be more open to breaking from social norms than they might otherwise have been. But not across the board. And it's increasingly less so in the U.S. Beyond that, there's nothing inherently more "interesting" about gay people. "Better read"? Can't imagine why... I highly doubt it's connected. Depending on your group of friends, maybe? Interesting.

Odds are, most of the brilliant/fun/fascinating people you meet in life will be straight, merely by virtue of the fact that most people are straight. Percentage-wise, can't imagine much difference. My partner and I have no more fun or in common with our gay friends than our straight friends.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. This oft-quoted "truism" is only partially true, and we must be careful how we apply it if we're to be honest and accurate. Obviously everything societal has a reason, as in a cause, but not necessarily as in a truth. Urban legends have reasons, but the legends are nonetheless false. Some stereotypes exist because some prominent or conspicuous members of a group exhibit(ed) them, regardless of how many others do. Some exist because some random thing spurred them that has little or no basis in reality. Some exist because they were once true of some subset of the group, for particular reasons of the time, but are no longer relevant. Most stereotypes are widely inaccurate, and some aren't at all accurate. Some people confuse this observation with being "PC." While there areoverly "PC" folks who distort the truth, others distort it in the opposite direction. Sometimes they're members of the very group they're stereotyping. Let's be honest and draw conclusions from good data.

I dislike gays who I refer to as 'dirty gays'. Folks who display their sexuality openly, brazenly and do so in places where everyone else tones things down, such as in an office environment. I also dislike 'dirty heteros' who do the same thing. If you're equal opportunity, why specify their sexual orientation? Unless you also specify "dirty short people" and "dirty Irish people with wavy hair and capped teeth." That could get tiresome. Maybe just say "dirty behavior," or "PDAs," since it's the behavior, not necessarily the people, you dislike. As do I, and probably most people. (Depending on what the offenders look like. !) Mild public affection is fine in most environments, but not sexual behavior. That's got nothing to do with sexual orientation.

[...]a guy in the office I work in who is gay and regularly wears tight, shiny leather pants in the office. He dresses for the office like I would imagine he would when going clubbing. He gets away with it only because he is a. gay and b. the president of the local gay/lesbian alliance. Nobody wants to confront him over his lack of adherence to the dress code out of fear of a lawsuit. Sounds like the boss's fault for letting him get away with it. Guy should be made to adhere to the dress code. It's distracting and obnoxious of him, and I doubt he could win that fight. Maybe you're all misjudging him, and he'd be embarrassed. Even if he's got the misplaced, overcompensating ego it sounds like he has, he's still got to comply with the rules. He signed a contract, didn't he? It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has to do with being a self-absorbed *******. The boss should enforce the rules.

I would think that to be very likely, as demonstrated by the fact that rates of homosexuality/bisexuality are different between different societies. "Different" also meaning the same society over different time periods. Do any reliable studies show this? Maybe, but it's unlikely given two key factors: 1) different people and cultures define "homosexuality" differently -- is it sexual activity, sexual/romantic desire (regardless of activity), culturally common sexual behavior sans life-long desire (as in ancient Greece)?... I'd stick to desire as the best definition, and keep it consistent; 2) it's impossible to discern actual rates of homosexuality when a great many gay people don't want to acknowledge their sexuality, often even to themselves. Given the various stigmas attached, to varying degrees in most cultures and subcultures, it's unlikely one can get a reliable comparison. We must always keep this in mind when trying to figure out how many people are gay.

Sorry I wrote so much -- happens when ya come to a hot topic late.

[Regnad Kcin]

Glenn, much thanks for your thoughtful contribution to a thread that was initiated by a rather thought-less post.

[Glenn]

Thank you, Regnad. I enjoyed your humor here!

[Glenn]

RandFan,

In answer to your question, yes, I agree with you that limits to free speech should be very rare. I don't know what all the considerations are that go into the ACLU picking cases, obviously not all can be handled, and perhaps there are some biases, but I don't know.

Re abortion: The ACLU has also defended anti-abortion activists from police abuse. But regarding the Nuremberg Files (anti-abortion website) case to which you referred... as you may know, the ACLU actually filed a brief supporting portions of both sides of that lawsuit. The ACLU was specifically interested in what should legally constitute a "true threat," versus constitutionally protected speech. They outlined very specific terms, which included consideration of context, explicitness, specific intention "to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener, thereby intending to place the listener in fear for his or her safety," direction toward a specific individual or specific individuals rather than a group at large, and so on. It's fairly lengthy.

As you may recall, the website was full of hate messages and images of dripping blood and links to sites promoting killing abortion providers, surrounding a list of abortion providers' names -- along with their home addresses, their photos, their license plate numbers, and the names of their children and what schools they attended. The names of those who were killed (or otherwise died) were crossed out on the site, within hours of their deaths, and the names of those who were merely injured were grayed out. (E.g., a couple hours after Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death by a sniper at his home, his name was crossed out on the website.) This was a hit list, with instigations and instructions. Even the defendants on the stand said that "creating a sense of fear and intimidation, even terror, among the abortion providers named in the posters was precisely the intent of those who prepared or distributed the wanted-style posters."

But -- despite all of that -- it is important to remember the key relevant fact: the ACLU objected to the court's ruling, claiming the verdict impinged on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because the website did not advocate imminent violence. That was the important distinction which made the ACLU feel the court had reached too far. I know the ACLU intended to join an appeal, I don't recall what happened.

FWIW, from everything I read about the case and its context, I strongly disagreed with the ACLU -- I felt the Nuremberg Files indeed crossed the line and was not protected speech.

Re the NAMBLA case: the ACLU drew the same conclusion here as it did in the above case, for an even broader reason: the literature here did not target anyone specifically. So it was consistent of the ACLU. Again, I can't say I agree... that was some f***ng scary stuff they apparently published, and I think it would absolutely be a demonstrably better, safer world without it. Is that a high enough bar? I dunno. Probably not, but damn, I dunno....

I don't know the Paladin case, I'll look it up sometime.

Great points, and good, challenging discussion. I enjoy. Thanks!

[epepke]

I'm straight, but not narrow and I can't imagine any Gay Pride organization inviting NAMBLA to march with them. I think that would be as detrimental to the gay cause as the Republican Party inviting the Aryan Nations to a Family Values convention.

I agree, and this is why I think that it's stupid when it happens.

BTW, I'm not gay, but I'm queer.

I don't understand WHY you would expect a gay pride organization to celebrate a "Focus on the Family" event. Isn't that a bit like expecting Louis Farrakan to invite skinheads to the million man march? I also don't see what the Hitler Youth robots have to do with gay pride (unless it's the Facist uniforms).

I see that Reductio Ad Absurdum Impairment Month has rolled along again. It's a bit late this year. It usually peters out around the end of September.

Please read the essay that I linked to. I repeat the relevant portion here:

But to answer my friend's question about Gay Pride Day Parades, yes, leather groups and Radical Faeries and, yes, even NAMBLA have just as much right to march in a parade as Dignity and the Spruce Street Singers. Now if someone actively would like to prevent any of these groups from fulfilling their goals, he has the option to lobby against their legal efforts. But no one has a right to prevent the group from existing, or from displaying their pride in a parade that celebrates it.

Note the key phrase "or from displaying their pride in a parade that celebrates it." Now, that seems right and good and Constitutional and all. I respect the right of NAMBLA to march, too.

However, drilling down a bit, let's look at "displaying their pride in a prade that celebrates it." That seems clear enough to me. According to this author, Gay Pride parades celebrate the right of NAMBLA to display their pride.

Now, again according to this author at least, one of the following must be true:

1) Gay Pride parades celebrate the right of all organizations to display their pride.

In that case, why not Focus on the Family?

or

2) Gay Pride parades celebrate the rights of NAMBLA to display their pride, because NAMBLA has some preferential status. It need not be limited to NAMBLA and is extended to a variety of other groups, such as in the words of the essay, "leather groups and Radical Faeries." All such groups necessarily have special status of being connected to Gay Pride.

In that case, no fair pissing and moaning when some member of the public concludes that NAMBLA has a connection to Gay Pride.

Also, no fair admonishing me for being the messenger. I'm just pointing out that you (the generic you, not you personally) can't have it both ways.

You can draw the line so that it excludes NAMBLA but may include leather groups and the Radical Faeries. The latter are not criminal, and if they were in the past, it was an unjust law that needed to be changed. NAMBLA advocates criminal behavior, which is also reprehensible. I'm delighted to see most Gay Pride parades taking this stance, and I look forward to the day when it is just assumable.

On the other hand, you can draw the line so that it includes NAMBLA, as the author of the essay I linked to suggests.

Both actions have sequellae.

It saddens me that the Gay Pride movement has NAMBLA as a black mark. I look forward to the day when the movement has lived it down. But let's be fair, now. This black mark did not entirely originate in the fevered imaginations of right-wing ultraconservative Christians.

You pays your ticket and you takes your chances. The International Lesbian and Gay Association was affiliated with NAMBLA for more than a decade, and delegates of NAMBLA contributed to writing their constitution. In 1993 the group gained consultative status on the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Jesse Helms led a protest to this, which resulted in suspention of their status. Yeah, Helms is the scum of the earth, but in this case, he was right. Then and only then, the ILGA voted with an overwhelming majority of 214-30 to expel not just NAMBLA but three pedophile groups.

AFAIK, ECOSOC has still not re-instated the ILGA, on the grounds that they haven't presented enough evidence that they are no longer affiliated with pedophile groups, though they have another opportunity to petition this year. Poor ILGA, some might say. They've turned over a new leaf. But them's the breaks, folks. Traffic with reprehensible criminals, and that's what you get.

But let's not whitewash it, shall we?

[epepke]

[FONT=Verdana]
You are absolutely wrong.

Every major gay pride parade bans NAMBLA. Every major gay rights group condemns them.

Nice whitewash, dude. Though I'm glad that more and more are condemning them.

Please read what I wrote about the ILGA in another response. Is an international group who once had ECOSOC consultative status not major? Or are they not a gay rights group? Or does the word "every" exclude them? Are they in, like, a different universe?

Look it up for yourself.

I'm well aware that most of NAMBLA's activities have involved gate-crashing, and that the vast majority of gay people hate NAMBLA. This is good, but most does not mean all.

If I had said that NAMBLA was representative of gay people or gay organizations in general, then I'd be wrong. Fortunately, I've never said this. Not that this matters much around here, of course, because as Reagan said, "facts are stupid things" and it applies to this culture in spades.

But to you, I'm not only wrong, but absolutely wrong. Wow! I must have taken a lot of hallucinogens that I don't remember.

Or maybe you think I'm wrong-headed for pointing at the turd in the punchbowl. After all, it's not a really big turd. It's not as if the majority of the punch consists of turd. Drink it! It's good for you.

Not my style, I'm afraid.

[epepke]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think you have to pretend anything. Nothing's wrong with the fact that certain things suggest a person's sexual orientation. But those certain things are not usually stereotypes. Some people fit some stereotypes. Not enough to really matter. The significant clues are how people react to those they find sexually attractive, and that goes for gay or straight folks.

I don't. The "you" is the generic you. In my observation, a lot of people do, and I'm commenting on it.

A "stereotype" can functionally be defined as a generalization that someone finds offensive. It's a political term.

How many people fit stereotypes, or what predictive power stereotypes have, is a scientific question, only valid given a list of stereotypes. You seem to have decided that the answer is "not enough to really matter," which I don't see evidence for.

I'm reminded of the following exchange from Philip K. Dick's Eye in the Sky, which I'm quoting from memory:

"Negroes don't carry pocketknives. That's a bourgeois stereotype."

Bill Laws said, "I do."

Note, though, that the OP was not about "stereotypes" per se. It was about any signals that gay people give off. I think it's a lot easier to show that those signals exist and can be detected by reasonably aware individuals. If you want to say that reaction toward people that they find sexually attractive is a subset of the signals, then I heartily agree. I also have to point out that such reactions are frowned upon in the workplace, for reasons that I find very good. If you disagree, then I am willing to argue the point.

[Glenn]

I'm delighted to see most Gay Pride parades taking this stance, and I look forward to the day when it is just assumable. That day came quite a while ago, as I delineated above.

Nice whitewash, dude. Though I'm glad that more and more are condemning them.

Please read what I wrote about the ILGA in another response. No whitewash, dude. In* my posts I was talking only about events and groups in the United States. I could have put it in every sentence but it seemed clear, and I was right at the character limit anyway. Let me be even clearer: LAMBDA, HRC, GLAAD, GLAD, NGLTF, etc.
*NOTE: I edited this from "Throughout" because I reread my posts and realized I did trim "U.S." out a lot, but it's still clear I'm talking about the U.S. by the cities and events and history and organizations I mention.

If I had said that NAMBLA was representative of gay people or gay organizations in general, then I'd be wrong. Fortunately, I've never said this. Not that this matters much around here, of course, because as Reagan said, "facts are stupid things" and it applies to this culture in spades. Reread the post, you seem to have confused the reference. I said you were wrong specifically about claiming, twice, that "large Gay Pride parades" and "large Gay Pride organizations" "invite NAMBLA to march." On that, you were wrong.

Or maybe you think I'm wrong-headed for pointing at the turd in the punchbowl. Not at all, but you were pointing at the punchbowl thinking the turd was in there, but the turd was actually was on the floor. (In this tortured analogy, the turd is NAMBLA and the bowl is the major gay pride parades.)

I also have to point out that such reactions are frowned upon in the workplace, for reasons that I find very good. If you disagree, then I am willing to argue the point.
Those reactions can be as subtle as one's eye casually glancing at someone who passes by, or smiling more at some people than others. Who said anything about overt flirting or harassment? I was talking about subtle clues.

[Glenn]

Oh, and as far as I recall, under pressure from the U.S. groups, ILGA did reject the turd about a decade ago.

[epepke]

That day came quite a while ago, as I delineated above.

Good. I'm glad. Everything's peachy now and all better. I guess I won't be hearing anything about conditions more than ten years ago from any gay-positive organizations any more.

No whitewash, dude. Throughout my posts I clarified I was talking only about events and groups in the United States. I could have put it in every sentence but that seemed redundant, and I was right at the character limit anyway. Let me be even clearer: LAMBDA, HRC, GLAAD, GLAD, NGLTF, etc.

OK, got me there! Yes, the ILGA is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. And, so what? Is it, like, OK when an organization outside the US does this? Or is this just a hyperlegalistic trap, for the purposes of what, exactly? Beating me? And then you win, what?

Reread the post, you seem to have confused the reference. I said you were wrong specifically about claiming, twice, that "large Gay Pride parades" and "large Gay Pride organizations" "invite NAMBLA to march." On that, you were wrong.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be hyperlegalistic here or just wrong, but turnabout is fair play.

Since you have not posted the quotes, I can only assume that you mean the following:

I am still not amused when large Gay Pride parades invite NAMBLA to march.

Oh, I have. Heard of large Gay Pride organizations inviting and allowing NAMBLA to march.

The first includes a reference to a quote by Queen Victoria and involves a conditional statement. The second is obviously in the past tense.

Not at all, but you were pointing at the punchbowl thinking the turd was in there, but the turd was actually was on the floor. (In this tortured analogy, the turd is NAMBLA and the bowl is the major gay pride parades.)

In your opinion, and according to your reading, although I'm not sure what the turd being on the floor would mean--seems to me that a turd on the floor is easier to step around?

Those reactions can be as subtle as one's eye casually glancing at someone who passes by, or smiling more at some people than others. Who said anything about overt flirting or harassment? I was talking about subtle clues.

Yeah, and what of it? What does "subtle" mean, except that obtuse people can't pick up on the clues?

[RandFan]

I don't know the Paladin case, I'll look it up sometime.

Great points, and good, challenging discussion. I enjoy. Thanks! Agreed, thanks. I'll have to dig up some additional info on the cases we discussed.

As to Paladin (from my recolection),

Paladin is a publisher that sold a book entitled Hitman.
The book gave details on how to kill someone and get away with it.
Someone used the book as a guide to commit murder.
The family of the victims sued the publisher.
Publisher lost.
Supreme court refused to hear the case.Some points from this website (http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/HitManLawsuit.htm):

The book was first published in 1983. Prior to the lawsuit filed in 1995, 13,000 copies had been sold. Besides being enjoyed by readers of true crime, it has been recommended reading by mystery writers and law enforcement personnel.
According to the suit, career criminal and convicted felon James Perry entered into a conspiracy with Lawrence Horn to kill Horn’s ex-wife and son so that Horn could inherit his son’s medical malpractice settlement. With this pre-existing plan in place, Perry allegedly purchased and read Hit Man in 1992. More than a year later, Perry committed the murders and also killed the duty nurse who was attending the boy.
Beyond filling Perry’s mail order for the book, Paladin had no contact with him and none at all with Lawrence Horn. Paladin had no knowledge of Perry’s conspiracy with Horn, that the two men were planning to commit a crime, or that they intended to kill anyone.
Perry has been convicted of murder and is on death row. Horn was also convicted and is serving life without parole.

[Glenn]

Good. I'm glad. Everything's peachy now and all better. I guess I won't be hearing anything about conditions more than ten years ago from any gay-positive organizations any more. I'm not sure what you mean.

OK, got me there! Yes, the ILGA is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. And, so what? Is it, like, OK when an organization outside the US does this? Or is this just a hyperlegalistic trap, for the purposes of what, exactly? Beating me? And then you win, what? I don't know how you got the impression I might have suggested ILGA's old position was "OK." I don't think anyone could read my posts and come away with that. Once again, my sole point was nothing more than a correction: viz., that the major parades and organizations here in the U.S. have indeed all condemned NAMBLA for quite some time. I have no idea what groups in other nations or international groups have done, that didn't seem in any way relevant to the point about major American gay pride parades, which are co-sponsored by major American gay rights organizations. I meant nothing more. Nothing else to read into it.

(Anyway, I couldn't "win" if I cared to, you already got me with my overstated "absolutely wrong.")

I'm not sure if you're trying to be hyperlegalistic here or just wrong, but turnabout is fair play. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "turnabout."

Since you have not posted the quotes, I can only assume that you mean the following Epepke, I said "reread the post" so I wouldn't waste forum space by putting it up a third time. You could scroll up and see I'd already pasted the quotes above. I referenced them so you'd know which ones I meant. But to be crystal clear, I will re-quote them:

Still, while I know that jerks exist, and in general there's not much that can be done about that, I am still not amused when large Gay Pride parades invite NAMBLA to march. NAMBLA, like the KKK, have a right to march on their own, but they don't have a right to get invited. Oh, I have. Heard of large Gay Pride organizations inviting and allowing NAMBLA to march. I think it's good that most Gay Pride parades recently have been excluding NAMBLA. (End re-quoted quotes.)

The first includes a reference to a quote by Queen Victoria I don't see how that's relevant. (Nor do I know what the quote is. "Not amused"? That's a very common phrase.)

and involves a conditional statement. Which also doesn't affect the meaning. This is crazy parsing.

The second is obviously in the past tense. In the context of your two posts and the question that your second one replied to, not really. Your first quote is in present tense: "I am still not amused..." & "...but they don't have a right to get invited," and your second quote clearly indicates you still think some major parades still invite NAMBLA. That's the sole misconception I've spent all this time correcting, and won't spend more doing because you've explained that was a past belief. I do think your use of "recently" is odd, since NAMBLA was banned by the major parades about 20 years ago, which was around the birth of the parade era. So at least the last 80-90% of the parade era has had NAMBLA banned from the majors. That doesn't strike me as a "recent" change. Unless I'm missing something. (I'm also not sure which major parades you meant, that supposedly "invited" NAMBLA in the past... didn't it only happen once, by a single individual (Hay), to the chagrin of the other organizers? On that I may well be wrong, it's just a side question I am honestly curious about.)

In your opinion, and according to your reading, although I'm not sure what the turd being on the floor would mean--seems to me that a turd on the floor is easier to step around? Nothing that clever. All I meant was that 1) we obviously agree NAMBLA is figuratively a turd, but 2) again, the one thing you were mistaken about was that NAMBLA is currently being invited to march in any major gay parades. It was merely a repeat of that same exact point, since you alluded to it with the turd analogy. That simple.

Yeah, and what of it? What does "subtle" mean, except that obtuse people can't pick up on the clues? Forgive my confusion, but are you just trying to argue for fun? I mean no disrespect, I'm honestly not sure. If so, that's cool, but I'm not interested. But if you seriously didn't follow what I meant, I'll gladly amplify: I'd originally explained in some detail a few times (in my original long posts) that the only semi-reliable way to discern who might be gay, based on behavior, across the board, is to observe where people's eyes go (and the like). You interpreted that, as I recapped it later, to mean behavior that would be "frowned upon in the workplace." That wasn't at all what I was talking about, so in my last reply I elaborated to remind you what I'd actually meant. I'm sure you see the difference between inappropriate workplace behavior and subtle cues you can pick up when someone sees a person they find attractive. Please let me know if this is still unclear.

Meantime, I meant to tell you that that scene you mentioned earlier from Hannah and Her Sisters is one of my all-time favorite Woody Allen scenes. Brilliant.

[Glenn]

RandFan,
Thanks. I've gotta read about that. Fascinating. Good, I needed some procrastination for the weekend.

[Z]

Like how they are at nightclubs...how they like to dress in full leather and wear those like Judas Priest leader singer caps.

Funny - I've seen straigths and bis dress this way too. And I've seen gays at clubs in perfectly pleasant, modern clothing.

Like why are they into neatly manicured facial hair?

And straight men aren't? I've seen gays who would've shamed bears with their overgrown face-bushes. I've seen straights with meticulously tweaked facial hair.

Why do they like to arrange stuff in their apartments just so, like they may even put their toiletries and manicure tools all in perfect diagonal rows.

Yep - no straight person EVER does this. :rolleyes:

OK, maybe the word you were looking for was 'anal retentive'. Or maybe just 'organized'.

And I've seen apartments of gays that were in a horrid state.

Hmmmmm? What's with that?

You're a prejudiced Tucks.

Heterosexual males just have sex ..with women...without any stereotypical traits like the gays do. Why IS that? Why don't gays just have sex with men and act like heterosexuals in every other way?

Without any stereotypical traits - like obsessing over sports, tinkering with cars, refusing to learn how to cook or clean, wearing dirty clothes three or four days in a row, sitting around the house in their underwear, drinking beer, ogling supermodels that look like starving children, working out, crushing things, thinking that it's cool or civil to belch, fart, and otherwise be disgusting....

What's with that?

Iamme - if you ever had any credibility on this forum, you can kiss it goodbye.

[wolfgirl]

Without any stereotypical traits - like obsessing over sports, tinkering with cars, refusing to learn how to cook or clean, wearing dirty clothes three or four days in a row, sitting around the house in their underwear, drinking beer, ogling supermodels that look like starving children, working out, crushing things, thinking that it's cool or civil to belch, fart, and otherwise be disgusting.....I've been meaning to bring up that very thing. There IS such a thing as the stereotypical straight male. Does every straight male fit into it? Lucky for us, no. But enough of them do that it has become a stereotype, and then I think that actually encoureages men to live up (or down) to it. Drink beer, burp and fart, ogle women. Just watch an episode of The Man Show if you don't know the type. I asked my husband out of curiosity once if that show offended him and he said it did. The idea that that's what men are supposed to be. That that's somehow "a real man." Yuck!

Personally, I hate the sterotype of women as being shoe-crazy. I have only a few pairs of shoes, all of them comfortable. Plain tennis shoes for most everyday wear with jeans. A few different pairs of sandals for summer. One nice pair of black dress shoes with fairly low heels for dress-up occasions. One pair of black and one pair of brown suede shoes. All but the dress-up shoes are flats. I'm a pretty basic gal when it comes to clothing; jeans are my daily choice. Does the fact that I wear "sensible shoes" make me a lesbian? What on earth does my shoe preference have to do with who I like to make love to? And why am I supposed to love shoes just because I'm a woman? I rarely see a pair of shoes I like. They all look stupid to me, especially those pointy-toes ones that are so in right now. But I think that there are a lot of women who do love shoes, and watching shows like Sex and the City makes others think that they're supposed to. I can hardly think of a show or even a commercial that doesn't play on this stereotype anymore. I hate it. (There's a commercial that's been running recently where one woman talks about finding a great pair of shoes, another talks about having a good hair day and a third talks about fitting into her favorite jeans. I got so angry with this commercial, thinking, "Is that all that women are supposed to care about - shoes, their hair and their weight?" But then I saw what the commercial was for - Botox! So it's no wonder that it's appealing to those most vapid of women.)

Anyways, I guess my point is that there's almost always a factual basis to any stereotype, but that doesn't mean that everyone fits into it, or even most everyone. Just enough. Same, I assume, with gays. Not all gays act that way. But enough do that we think of them all as being that way. And I suspect, as I said above about straight men, that the sterotype feeds on itself. Gay men think that's how they're "supposed" to act, so they do.

[Z]

I have to admit, I've fallen into this very trap before - even recently. When I met one of my wife's cow-orkers, I immediately thought he was either gay or bi. He dressed immaculately, had a very gentle manner and a good sense of humour, and worked at a women's clothing store. His other career is in hairdressing. His nails are neatly manicured, and his hair is never out of place. He compares colors and patterns with women as if born to do so, and rarely is wrong in his fashion choices.

As it turns out, he's recently divorced and has several children. And he's homophobic - go fig! Of course, he could also be gay living in denial, but now that I've gotten to know the guy, I really don't think that's the case at all.

In high school we had a teacher who turned out to be gay - a recent self-admission, it seems, since he had recently divorced his wife. The only indicator that he was gay that anyone - including the gay kids in our class - picked up on was his enormous tie collection. We catalogued his neckware choices for one school year, and over the course of that year, he went through 177 different ties... including changing ties several times in one day on occasion, and accounting for certain dress-code days like sports support or casual days. Otherwise, NONE of his behavior suggested gaity.

His best friend, on the other hand (no, they didn't date at all while we were in school), was the stereotypical, limp-wrist, swish-walk, slight-lisp gay. When a few of us finally asked him about his behavior (off-campus), he explained that his father was also gay, though married (to a lesbian); and he had learned his behavior from his father. His sister, apparently, took after Mom - and ended up in a motorcycle gang riding around Utah preaching to Mormons.

(Who knows?)

Something I'm noticing, though - no stereotypes about bisexuals floating around. I've heard gays and straights deny that bisexuals even exist - I'm curious what y'all's opinions on bis are? (I am bisexual myself - I just want to know what you think)

[luchog]

Fortunately, that changed in 1995 when the Supreme Court set a precedent with its ruling on the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC. With that ruling, the few remaining iffy jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle) were finally able to have parades and legally ban NAMBLA, starting in 1996.
That's the controversy I was referring to; though I seem to recall it was a few years after that that Seattle finally allowed such bans. Another part of the controversy was more recent; with NAMBLA claiming that they were historically a part of the Pride Parade (only incidentally true, for reaons that Glenn posted) and thus excluding them was unfairly divisive, and being supported by one or two overly-inclusive individuals within the organization while the organization as a whole did their best to distance themselves from NAMBLA and their sattelite groups.

[Glenn]

zaayrdragon,

In answer to your question, none of the bisexual men or women I've known have anything in common with each other behaviorally or in their personalities.

It seems to me life is harder on bisexual folks than gays in one sense, because you endure prejudice from both gays and straights. Hopefully that's less common these days, but I have no idea.

It seems the reasons some people ignorantly deny bisexuality are that 1) most people like to imagine everything falls into neat black and white categories, even when shades of gray exist, 2) some gay people lie (sometimes to themselves) about being bisexual so as to avoid acknowledging their orientation -- thus making some people think that all bisexuals are lying, which is untrue, 3) some people who are 100% gay or straight find it hard to imagine being bisexual, just as some straight people find it hard to imagine being gay -- it's about people taking the facts of their own lives to be the facts of everyone's (or as Schopenhauer said, though he meant something else, "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world"). I was one of those ignorant doubters myself until about 15 years ago, when I got to know some bisexual men and women. Nothing unique, except that they can fall for members of either gender.

[Terry]

Something I'm noticing, though - no stereotypes about bisexuals floating around. I've heard gays and straights deny that bisexuals even exist - I'm curious what y'all's opinions on bis are? (I am bisexual myself - I just want to know what you think)

I've heard plenty of stereotypes about bisexual people. None of them complimentary.

I identify as gay, but in my opinion that doesn't exclude bisexual. Bisexual would be a technically accurate description of me, also. Although by experience and preference I'd have to say I'm mostly attracted to those of the same sex (as me).

--Terry.