being GAY.

[musclebrains]

My problem with his post is yes, queenie guys, often gay, but gay guys not often queenie. I am bi, and have lived in and out of the gay culture for years, and most gay men aren't queenie. The average gay kid who's in the closet often is afraid to come out of the closet for just the reason that people with very little real experience like warik perpetuate the stereotype that gay men are like that. Some are most aren't and both are fine. But imagine feeling attracted to men but also being a more traditionally masculine guy and knowing that if you come out of the closet society will instinctively see you as a queen? That's the harm of the stereotype that warik delights in perpetuating.

I agree with this, Wyst, but I also think an argument against heterosexist posturing can't rely on dissing a very real type within the gay community. Gay men themselves have cruelly marginalized effeminate men just to placate the kind of prejudice that Warik embodies in an effort to represent themselves as better candidates for assimilation.

I have seen countless gay kids in my office whose main complaint is that they don't feel "masculine enough."

It's the interesting obsession of gender and gay and lesbian studies to make an inquiry into the construction, not only of sexual orientation, but of gender itself as a collection of "performative gestures" imposed by the culture. Effeminacy did not become strongly associated with homosexuality until the American psychoanalytical community stereotyped the "sissy" as an incipient homosexual (only one of Freud's multiple explanations). So, it is fair to question how much effeminacy became constellated as a way for gay men to identify themselves to one another -- and for the culture to identify and marginalize homosexuals.

The Mattachine Society, one of the early gay movements, actually proceeded on this basis and required members to "masculinize" themselves. (Some would call this a "normalization" of gender.) Women's organizations similarly required members to "feminize" themselves. Any gay person, unless he is extremely identified with the markers of the other gender, can tell you how easy it is to reform one's appearance and manner. I would say that this play with gender is one of the things many people enjoy about being gay.

But the question for me, as a psychologist, is always whether to "teach" an effeminate boy or masculine woman to engage in this play, which they often consider a compromise.

 

[musclebrains]

Howver stereo types has a bsis in reality. I have had close ties to the gay community most likely longer than you have been "out" I began bouncing at a gay nightclub for extra money when I was 17, they had a mixed cxollege night, and some of the frat guys got out of line sometimes! I have also run gay nightclubs in several cities.

I assume you know that the vast majority of gay men are not club kids and that you are generalizing, accurately I think, about a limited set of people.

 

[needleboy]

I assume you know that the vast majority of gay men are not club kids and that you are generalizing, accurately I think, about a limited set of people.

Nope, not talking about club kids, they are just looking for acceptance, while at the same time tryinfg to find out who they truly are.

I am talking about guys 24-45! This was the largest part of our crowd, and we hads to keep security in the bathroom because of the drugs. I am 32 and most of my friends are 27-45, and they party alot!

PS- and they are Dr.s, lawyers, pharmacists, etc Definately not club kids!

 

[musclebrains]

Nope, not talking about club kids, they are just looking for acceptance, while at the same time tryinfg to find out who they truly are.

I am talking about guys 24-45! This was the largest part of our crowd, and we hads to keep security in the bathroom because of the drugs. I am 32 and most of my friends are 27-45, and they party alot!

PS- and they are Dr.s, lawyers, pharmacists, etc Definately not club kids!

I wasn't clear. You are talking about people you meet inside a bar -- "club kids" of all ages. That is a very limited slice of gay life on which to make generalizations about the entire community. You can only generalize about the set of people you were having contact with. This just a simple principle of statistical sampling.

 

[needleboy]

Musclebrains,

I see what you are saying as far as the drug use, but still stand by my statements!

It is form 15 years of experiences that I can make them. My friends and I talk about it all the time. Some of them ae calming down now, after 1 overdosed on crack and went into rehab(court mandated), and another was caught for money laundering and went to jail they finally said enough was enough on the drugs! As far as promiscuity, most guys I know are in relationships, but they are very 'OPEN" relationships!

 

[RyanH]

I agree with this, Wyst, but I also think an argument against heterosexist posturing can't rely on dissing a very real type within the gay community. Gay men themselves have cruelly marginalized effeminate men just to placate the kind of prejudice that Warik embodies in an effort to represent themselves as better candidates for assimilation.

That's right. As we have discussed before, some gay men have not only marginalized themselves but they have also over-compensated in an effort to become more masculine....i.e. the Jeep Wrangler, the military gear, etc. Many young gays often choose a runway "model/actor" with a perfect body as an inspiration as opposed to Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams (although I'm not so sure Mr. Capote is a positive role model, LOL). Some of these gay men feel that the only way to assimilate is being like someone else as opposed to bringing your own set of unique circumstances to the table. But then that seems to be a problem with straight people as well.

Don't you feel that part of the problem is a severe lack of role models, or maybe the role models are there; they are just overshadowed by the glamour/entertainment industry? I'm not sure as these are very complex, multi-faceted problems.

 

[needleboy]

That's right. As we have discussed before, some gay men have not only marginalized themselves but they have also over-compensated in an effort to become more masculine....i.e. the Jeep Wrangler, the military gear, etc. Many young gays often choose a runway "model/actor" with a perfect body as an inspiration as opposed to Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams (although I'm not so sure Mr. Capote is a positive role model, LOL). Some of these gay men feel that the only way to assimilate is being like someone else as opposed to bringing your own set of unique circumstances to the table. But then that seems to be a problem with straight people as well.

Don't you feel that part of the problem is a severe lack of role models, or maybe the role models are there; they are just overshadowed by the glamour/entertainment industry? I'm not sure as these are very complex, multi-faceted problems.

Ryan,

While I see your point, I think it's a bit less dramatic than that. In the 80's gay men were extremely efeminate. I think it was just that they could be more openly gay, and it went to an extreme. This super masculine phase is just the pendulum swinging in the other direction. It happens with many things!

 

[Warik]

Oh, I don't have a problem with people saying what they think, but Warik seems to just say what he thinks will piss people off for his jollies, which he pretty much admitted to.

I never said I piss off people in order to get my jollies. I say what I say because I believe it to be true. If others decide to act childish and insult me without providing counterpoints because I'm "not empathic" amuses me because it shows me what kind of children I'm dealing with. flexed1 completely disagree with what I said, yet responded intelligently. This is significant when you also consider the fact that he's gay himself. Amazing, eh?

As I've pointed out to Warik on other occasions, it does matter how you present your opinions. If you present things in nasty nutcase light, don't be all surprised and pointlessly smug when people treat you like one.

I know how to present my opinions. Though I've said before that school is not as important as people think, I've written countless excellent persuasive papers for advanced composition classes. Like they always say in writing class, "you must consider the audience." If I were writing a speech for the public on the issue of gays and suicide, I would have to be "empathic" or hire someone to be "empathic" for me because I know about the ignorance and quick-to-label behavior that exists in the general public. Say something mean about somebody, even if it's true, and you're automatically labeled a bigot and a "fucking idiot." Woohoo. Given the fact that my conversations with and against Elite members in the past have proven to be somewhat intelligent, I didn't think I had to sugar-coat everything. Then again, I've never really seen you post before, so I didn't anticipate that you would participate and have your feelings hurt.

My problem with his post is yes, queenie guys, often gay, but gay guys not often queenie.

My problem with your post is the failure to read my post. Did I EVER say, or even SUGGEST, that "ALL GAYS ACT QUEENIE." No! Not once. I said that most, if not all, guys in general who act queenie ARE gay. I don't think anyone has disagreed with me on that point yet.

How would the big guys among you feel about feel about these two: "all men with deep voices are stupid," or "muscley guys are rapists," are those harmless stereotypes?

Now, I'm not the biggest, or even one of the biggest, guys here, but I was the biggest/best built in my high school senior classes because I took all advanced class and the people in those classes, typically, do not attend the gym regularly (uh oh... Warik is stereotyping smart kids! aieeee!) Most of them thought I was a jerk and an asshole (my best friend in HS, who happened to be friends with the others, told me this) without even knowing me. I would walk into class, sit, listen to the teacher/take a nap, and leave. I'd never say a word to anyone. How can they confirm that I'm a jerk or an asshole without even talking to me? They can't.

So, I was the "victim" of a stereotype. My opinion? Yes, it IS a harmless stereotype? You know why? Because it didn't phase me at all. I went to class, got my A's, and didn't talk to the people who didn't like me. In other words, I practiced the long forgotten art of "mind your own business." I didn't have problems with that stereotype because I didn't give a shit. Perhaps we'd see many fewer gay suicides if they simply wouldn't give a shit.

I made this point, earlier in the thread, but I guess Warik didn't bother to read it. I really doubt he could refute it in its substance. He is more likely to pick at the edges and ignore the substance. That's his usual tactic in his "logical" arguements.

Why would I bother attacking the counterargument itself if the foundation is not even secure? Would the U.S. Army attack a Taliban camp by storming through the front gate, or by sneaking in a BIG GAPING HOLE in an unprotected fence? When you can secure the outside of your argument, then of course, I'll have to attack the inside. If, however, you cannot remain consistent, I have no reason to bother.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

You stereotype gay men and then claim nobody should stereotype you

Nope. I don't care if I'm stereotyped. If the stereotype is true, it's true. If it's false, it's false and it does not have an effect on me. My comment was in regard to the fact that those all over this thread who claim that stereotypes are bad proceed to stereotype me (or rather, in your case, invent a stereotype out of the blue and use it).

I have no problem with stereotypes - I have a problem with inconsistency.

You claim you don't care about homosexuality -- unless it's demonstrated "flagrantly," yet you have no hesitation (a) in demonstrating your flagrant negative generalizations in this respect

Yes, and? I said I have no problem as long as it's not demonstrated flagrantly, but that if it is demonstrated flagrantly, the only right I have is to dislike it. I cannot and would not attempt to interfere.

Just as I have the right to dislike what someone is doing while still being within his rights, I have the right to demonstrate my "flagrant negative generalizations" while you have the right to disagree. If you do choose to disagree, however, I would prefer that you'd do so in a civil manner, i.e. via a method other than the one you are opposing.

in flagrantly posting a thread about the facts of your own sexual orientation.

I don't remember posting a big thread saying "HI I'M STRAIGHT!" Did I do that? (Seriously... I don't recall. Link please?)

Yawn.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

Just for the record AIDS is NOT a gay disease, but it is linked to lifestyle! Sorry, it's just a fact!

Thank you for your commentary. Now, everyone, he and I said practically the exact same thing, only he sugar-coated it and said it with much "empathy." Does that somehow make his point valid and mine invalid?

-Warik