Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Sexual Orientation is an oppressive, anti-man Western concept

levite · 05-04-2010, 10:23 PM

I'm not going to bother quoting, because there's just too much back and forth to cite.

What it seems to boil down to, as far as I can tell, is that NM, you don't necessarily dislike homosexual sex acts per se, nor do you necessarily dislike labels; you simply prefer your own labels, and feel threatened or uncomfortable with the labels and the social sexual expressions of some gay men.

To respond to your question about where I've met "all these" gay men who don't have any problems being gay and masculine, the answer is: all over. California, New York, Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Ontario Canada, Washington DC, Chicago, Miami, London, Tel Aviv.... Pretty much anywhere I've ever made gay friends.

Given that, what I still don't understand is why what you're complaining about matters, or even matters to you. Orientation, gender...whatever. If you're complaining about the gay or GLBT identity "box" being too restrictive, how is it any better to have an apparently equally restrictive set of "gender" boxes, whether there are two or three of them? Maybe "masculine" and "feminine" are just more flexible categories than you think they "ought to be." Maybe "masculine" does or could mean something other than what you think it "should" mean.

As for whether sexual preferences constitute an identity, I think identity is created whenever people with similar ideas, tastes, and lifestyle choices come together to live in a community: when gay liberation began, that's what happened. Did it have to be that way? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with the fact that that's how it is? Again, probably not. Also, identities can be created as a result of being oppressed by others: gay people throughout the past 2,000-odd years of Western history were oppressed by straight people, so an identity was created. The fact that today's gay people, who are much less oppressed, choose to embrace that identity and reclaim it as a positive just doesn't strike me as in any way problematic. I just don't see what's to care about.

And finally, I'm sorry, but-- at least when it comes to Western civilization-- your notion that society was somehow free of sexual identities or preference labels, and that everybody just knew and accepted that "manly, masculine men" had sex with other "manly, masculine men" is completely erroneous. I minored in European History, I did extensive Western History work for my Master's, and I have taught both European and American History: I know a little something about the topic. I have never seen anything-- not a single thing-- that indicates any phenomenon remotely resembling what you describe. I admit, the history of other places in the world is not my field: I've done some reading on the subject, but I'm prepared to accept the notion that things might have been different there. But as for Western Civilization...no, I'm sorry, I would need to see extensive supporting evidence before accepting such a theory.

05-04-2010, 10:23 PM	#38 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	I'm not going to bother quoting, because there's just too much back and forth to cite. What it seems to boil down to, as far as I can tell, is that NM, you don't necessarily dislike homosexual sex acts per se, nor do you necessarily dislike labels; you simply prefer your own labels, and feel threatened or uncomfortable with the labels and the social sexual expressions of some gay men. To respond to your question about where I've met "all these" gay men who don't have any problems being gay and masculine, the answer is: all over. California, New York, Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Ontario Canada, Washington DC, Chicago, Miami, London, Tel Aviv.... Pretty much anywhere I've ever made gay friends. Given that, what I still don't understand is why what you're complaining about matters, or even matters to you. Orientation, gender...whatever. If you're complaining about the gay or GLBT identity "box" being too restrictive, how is it any better to have an apparently equally restrictive set of "gender" boxes, whether there are two or three of them? Maybe "masculine" and "feminine" are just more flexible categories than you think they "ought to be." Maybe "masculine" does or could mean something other than what you think it "should" mean. As for whether sexual preferences constitute an identity, I think identity is created whenever people with similar ideas, tastes, and lifestyle choices come together to live in a community: when gay liberation began, that's what happened. Did it have to be that way? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with the fact that that's how it is? Again, probably not. Also, identities can be created as a result of being oppressed by others: gay people throughout the past 2,000-odd years of Western history were oppressed by straight people, so an identity was created. The fact that today's gay people, who are much less oppressed, choose to embrace that identity and reclaim it as a positive just doesn't strike me as in any way problematic. I just don't see what's to care about. And finally, I'm sorry, but-- at least when it comes to Western civilization-- your notion that society was somehow free of sexual identities or preference labels, and that everybody just knew and accepted that "manly, masculine men" had sex with other "manly, masculine men" is completely erroneous. I minored in European History, I did extensive Western History work for my Master's, and I have taught both European and American History: I know a little something about the topic. I have never seen anything-- not a single thing-- that indicates any phenomenon remotely resembling what you describe. I admit, the history of other places in the world is not my field: I've done some reading on the subject, but I'm prepared to accept the notion that things might have been different there. But as for Western Civilization...no, I'm sorry, I would need to see extensive supporting evidence before accepting such a theory. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne) Last edited by levite; 05-04-2010 at 10:35 PM..