The Wood Beyond The World Forum The Queer View...

Based on discussions on a couple of threads, I felt the focus was being lost in discussions on homosexuality, so by popular demand, I am starting a thread just focused on gay issues.

To be perfectly honest, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the thoughtful points brought up without the loud voices I am used to.

What I ask is honest discussion here. Every point of view is valid. No judgment calls will be allowed here. This can be a flash-point topic. People have issues and problems with it, and I want that brought up. If you want to build a gay character, I want this thread to explore all avenues, so you can see differing opinions.

And don't worry about offending me. As I mentioned in a previous thread, one of my best friends for close to 30 years, believes homosexuality is a sin and I am going to hell. We've agreed to disagree here and I don't love him any less because of his faith.

So if you are up to it, let's go. And hopefully we all will learn a little something along the way.

Loekie,

I will have to give this thread some honest thoughts before replying. I am not uncomfortable with the topic, only in making sure my replys are understood. As we noted in previous threads, we all seem not to have an issue with this topic, only in how we portray it, if at all in our work.

Nick.

Thank you, Loekie.

I'd like you to know where I'm coming from when I consider this topic.

I was raised by (really) left-wing, atheist parents. My father was as old-fashioned about sexual morality as any right-wing fundamentalist, however, as most old commies are (or were.) My mom was more liberal. I went through adolescence in the 1970s -- the full flower of the sexual revolution, I think -- post-Playboy, post-hippie, pre-AIDS -- artificial contraception had become fully accepted, and even elective abortion became legal while I was in junior high. By the time I was in high school it seemed that most couples lived together before they got married (though they usually did get married -- when they got pregnant.) But my first husband and I had to hide the fact that we were living together from his Catholic parents, and felt we had to get married to justify moving out of state together.

In those days no one I knew would have ever admitted to same-sex attraction. There were people I knew were gay or lesbian, and they made fun of queers just like straight people did. There were older folks in town who were clearly identified as homosexual -- everyone knew it, some people smirked about it, mostly it was overlooked more or less politely.

There was one gay bar in the medium-sized city where I grew up. Everyone knew about that too.

It wasn't until I was in my twenties and living in New Mexico that I encountered real openness about "different" sexuality. When I was an undergrad it was sort of fashionable to hang out with gays, in some circles. Lesbians especially were very open about their relationships. It was also pretty common for women to leave unsatisfactory (for whatever reason) straight relationships for female lovers. Since I always identified with the lefties, wherever I lived, and the newest left was ultra-tolerant, that was my milieu.

In those days I was a religious seeker -- thinking about attending Unitarian seminary as an alternative to an academic career, but not convinced about anything "supernatural," though I sometimes flirted with neo-paganism (that was mostly a kind of poetic impulse, I think.)

I always thought, without really thinking about it, that sexual impulses were naturally very fluid, for people in general, or for any given individual. That's still what I think, and it makes it impossible for me to accept condemnation of sexual expression of any kind -- as long as it isn't forced on someone unwilling or too naive to understand it, used as an instrument of control, etc.

But I am now a serious Roman Catholic. I think I'll leave the details about that for another post. Suffice it to say, for the moment, that I had some issues of my own to reconcile when I converted. It took a few years to deal with all of it.

My current fund of outrage when it comes to sex and sexuality is reserved for the commercial exploitation of the human sexual impulse. That, and watching over my teenaged daughter. (And the two issues are connected.)

My husband and I have managed to raise one son to a chaste adulthood -- our oldest listened to "Love Line" for a few months when he was about 14, got the picture, and is living just as a young man of good Catholic principles should live. The others are still works in progress. The stepdaughter I helped raise had a few sleep-over relationships in college, and has been living with the same nice Jewish boy for about 4 years now. I think they'll probably get married.

Anyhow, when I realized that my stories were going to hinge on the significance of sexual love -- spiritual, social, political, and whatever significance -- I knew I'd eventually cover every possibility. I have plans for a novel centering on one male character who's already appeared in my work -- his sexuality isn't an issue in his maturity, but when I go back to his youth and upbringing, it will be.

When I was working on the prequel to True Minds I had a pair of (I thought) minor characters -- the Rosencrantz and Gildenstern type -- one of whom just happened to be gay. It turned out to be incredibly important to the story, though in a kind of coincidental way. Nick was really worried about our Timu for awhile, in fact -- but I think I got him out of it gracefully.

I think this thread can be very enlightening, once people begin to participate -- but I'm also in need of Loekie's reviews of how I handle this stuff. ::cool::

Nick Quote:


Go for it. In some ways, I will be your guard dog. If someone takes issue with what you have to say, I will make sure the discussion will not degenerate.

Now, on to Leah. Actually, I come from the opposite angle. I grew up, before, during and after Vatican II. The sheer pompousness and blind mindset of the Catholic church completely turned me off from the concept of religion as I became a teen. It was only when I became homeless that I started to see more about the true value of religion.

Leah Quote:


I believe it is more fundamental than that. It is the mindset that people go into a sexual relationship. Even in my most atheistic phase of my life, I had major issues of people with multiple partners. And this was back, even in the 70's. Even though I was in the closet then, the idea of f*****g like bunnies horrified me. Where is the love in this? kept niggling in my mind, seeing what was happening in the gay community.

To this day, this still separates me from the gay community. My few one night stands were sexually gratifying but afterwards, I felt hollow. There was something missing. That is the disconnect that is more important than the commercial exploitation.

For all too many gay men, sex is for one reason: release. It ends up objectifying the other person(s). They want that orgasm. After they have it, they still don't feel "full". So they go after another person. It becomes a vicious cycle. They miss that important ingredient that makes sex "satisfying". So they go from one man to another, hoping that that one person might be the "one".

Sex becomes impersonal. The other person is just an object, a vessel for the few minutes they are together. That is why I agree with: Quote:


For all too many gay men, there is no other dimension than the physical. And the sad thing is this does get reinforced by the commercial world. The media actively objectifies people into sex objects and sends the wrong messages. That is why we have horrors like Paris Hilton.

There is more like barebacking (sex without a condom) but I'll leave that as the thread matures. But one thing I hope that will come out of this thread is the good and bad of the gay culture. And I will have tons to say on the bad side, which will give you all some food for thought.

Finally, Quote:


It is coming, my dear. Right now, I am focusing on Nick. My plan is to work on full chunks of stuff. And deal with the s****y schedule I have, totally screwing up my sleep cycle so I'm up at 3:30 in the morning, posting on this thread. ::confused::

Excellent topic, even if only to enlighten.

I look forward to the discussions.

Quote:


I am interested in discussions regarding why this is.

I was aware of that "objectification" factor in some of my gay friends -- but it seemed to always be a factor with straight males too -- and, increasingly it seems, with straight women. But I always assumed that it was mostly a male thing -- and when you're talking men with men the problem will only intensify.

I know that the trend to casual sex is not caused by captialism, but it certainly has been spread to all corners of society by commercial exploitation. When I have to worry about my sweet little daughter, who has been raised to know better, I know there's a problem. Being sexy is glorified, because it's a collection of qualities that are largely salable, through clothes, cosmetics, etc. Being loving and lovable can't be marketed (except through self-help books -- but who reads?) So what is our consumer society going to emphasize?

In my stories Timu starts out as one of those bunnies, heterosexual variety. He should know better too. His admirer, Paarvo, is starting down that road, but gets turned around by a series of rather rough circumstances -- it's in the book -- and plants the seed that will enable Timu to turn around too (in the next book.)

An adendum:

Of course not all men are as crude as that: I should say present company excepted, I guess.

What messes people up is the work and sacrifice that love requires. Love's not possible unless the good of the other comes before one's own good, at least some of the time.

There's also the delay of gratification. Young people aren't good at it, and consumerism doesn't like it because it cuts into profits. I imagine a culture or circumstances where life is precarious would create trouble with delaying gratification too.

Cultural structure has a lot to do with sexual attitudes of course. That's getting an airing in my third book, Compelling the Demon.

This may seem an odd comment to put here but I can say that I have absolutely no problems with homosexuals (and do plan on working it into a story but without making an issue to address but rather as something that is simply part of the world they are in). Don't really have too much to add to the topic at this point but thought I'd weigh in on it anyway.

It is good that I have the weekend off (finally!). So I can review some pieces ( ::suprised:: ) and address the multiple points popping up here. I'll focus on a couple for tonight.

Scribble said: Quote:

I'll post over the next day or so my feelings toward this, which as Leah points out is now infecting the heterosexual circles.

Leah points out: Quote:

Personally, I feel this has been in our society for all times. Those with money, throughout history were focused on fashion, be it clothes, hair-styles, etc. Both for men and women. It was part of the sexual tango that is always been part of our society.

Leah continues: Quote:

And it is throughly gruesome. Back in the 70's, as gay magazines started to grow, I was shocked by the images they were portraying. It is even worse in porn. Like the pressures on women (including girls), all gay magazines showed men who seemed perfect. They had the abs, pecs, etc. This started the trend to hit the gym to get that elusive body.

Things like anorexia started to appear in the gay culture in the 80's, but we don't talk about it. Before it hit the heterosexual world, body image became an obsession with gay men. And it was fueled by publications, even from more mainstream magazines like the Advocate.

I understand your problems, Leah. My best friend Brian has 2 amazing girls. But Brian and Jude have to fight a continual battle against the pressures of the barrage of images and expectations of what women have to be. In many ways, their faith has helped them steer through those rocky shoals.

Leah adds: Quote:

Sorry, my dear, I am as testosterone driven as my straight counterparts. I would like to take the high road, but I slip into the alpha male and can be completely crude. Yet I recognize that in myself and try not to let it out too often. I am a work in progress.

Leah continues: Quote:

I agree 110%. But we are self-centered creatures, I speak for men here. Be it now, or centuries ago, people would always look out for number 1, themselves. And for me, that is endemic within the gay mind-set.

The most revolting current thing in the gay community is barebacking, or having sex without a condom. But HIV is now a treatable condition, more and more gay men have sex without a condom. The reason: "I don't like the feel of a condom". There is no consideration of the partner(s) they are with. Their pleasure is paramount.

I hate condoms, but it is a necessity in a relationship unless it is an honest two partner relationship. Monogamy exists for a reason. I know this is heresy for many gay men. But that I'll get into addressing Scribble's point.

Leah continues: Quote:

It isn't just young people, Leah. Be it the current spate of garbage films, to video games, clothing, etc., the companies prey on impulse, instant gratification. At work, I am stunned to hear people getting ready to check out the current crap coming out of Hollywood on the first night. Or rushing out to get Halo XXXXX.

And when it comes to sex, it is even worse. There is something wrong if you don't put out on the first date. Over a month ago, I was set up on blind date. Nice guy, but not my type. Yet there was an undercurrent I did not like. I don't put out on the first date. I don't know the person. Let's spend some time to get to know each other before we get that intimate. But I find that is not the gay way. I suppose that is why I've never got the magic decoder ring. ::biggrin::

Before I hit the hay and get ready to deal with a major shopping spree at IKEA, I'll address Tealeaf. Quote:


Which is great. Yet all too often, that is a minority opinion. Just watching and reading the carnival you are having in the States, issues like gays in the military or gay marriages have already crept into the debates between all of those trying to vie to be the next president. Lines in the shifting sand are being drawn. As a Canadian, this is fascinating viewing.

Enough babbling. But I will leave you with a tad of a bombshell which should get the debate here even more interesting. I am totally, and completely against gay marriage. Let the fun begin!

Of course now we're wondering why you're against gay marriage.

I'll have to delay gratification, I guess.

Being suspceptible to physical desires isn't an exclusively male province, you know. I know (believe me, I know) that saying no is difficult, even without external pressures. Religion can be one of the ways to put brakes on our appetites -- in the crudest forms, through fear -- in the more sophisticated, through love -- love of God, desire for love, not just the avoidance of punishment. (Let's all say a perfect act of contrition.) Sometimes convention alone can carry the day, for people who have something worthwhile on their minds -- people who have to work for a living, and who know what real human love is. I think that's what middle-class morality, as it's called, is at it's best.

I had a sexual conversion several years before my official religious one -- I made up my mind to genuine monogamy after years of being very iffy about it. I was lucky (or blessed) to get involved with the man who's now my husband about the same time. I'm so proud of our oldest son that he's committed to chastity -- don't know if he'll marry, or become a priest, but I'm pretty certain he's not going to screw around, anyway.

Just by the way (if anything can be by-the-way in this topic) -- I know quite a few very stable gay couples (male and female) -- I'm not contesting what you say about the gay community, Loekie -- I guess that there are sensible, mature folks of every inclination. And I think one thing that tends to anchor heterosexual women is the possibility of pregnancy. We've removed that to a large extent, with predictable results -- more women being more casual about sex.

And, a note on promiscuity in general -- I suspect it grows out of need for love, and fear of being unlovable -- sort of settling for what you can get. When natural impulses arise, they're harder to resist if you don't think you can measure up to an ideal. Self-perpetuating insecurity.

First, I have been giving this some thought before replying and feel that no matter how long I think on this, my thoughts are still going to sound awkward, naive, or just plain stupid.

First and foremost, I grew up in a very Italian/Catholic household. It was great during my formative years. But, my parents were both very liberal concerning race, gender, and sexual preferences. As my dad use to say, "your grandfather came over on the bannana boat so who are we to judge."

As a teen, I never gave the gay community much thought. I knew my parents had friends who were gay in the dog showing circuits, but I just accepted them as dog breeders and professional handlers.

In the service, "Navy," I heard all the jokes about sailors, but can honestly say I did not know anyone in the service who was gay, male or female. Well, more than likely its because it was hidden.

Once out of the service, I went back to college and thats where I made my first gay friends, male and females. And, in a writing group. Imagine that. But that was the late seventies, early eighties and the discussions really did not revolve around emotions of the gay community as much as it did the new gay-plague going around call AIDS.

Out of college and into the work force, my career as a Project supertendent took off and the companies I worked for soon started giving me the gay archetects and designers. Men and Women, and the women were worse than the men. But I worked with them all. At first I kept asking myself why me? Later I found out that many were asking for me because I worked well with them. I took this as a compliment. But I did not think about their lifestyles, only about their designs and the work infront of me.

As I started delving into my writing, part-time for over 20 years, again, I did not think about the gay community in my writing, anymore than the black community, asian community, or polish community, baptist, catholics, or atheist. It was just my writing. And...I hate to admit this...but since I live in a mostly straight world of white anglo-saxon surrondings, my stories reflected that too. To me, this is normal and typical of most wanna be writers. The old addage of write what we know applies here. And its more than likely how most writers start out.

Not until after 911 did I decide to get serious about my writing, and as I have, I have also seen that I want to touch on topic's of race, sexuality, religion, etc. But, I do not want to preach. With sexuality, I can only speak from my side of the coin. As I have been told, I need to step my view up of women who will be 50% of my audience...maybe more. The funny thing is, I have been told my most women that I understand women more so than their own spouses do...and to please talk to my husband. lol. But in my writing, I have been told I lack a little.

With religion...I don't want to show one belief over another...for me its about morally right from wrong, or good vs evil. And there are degrees to both that are acceptable and not acceptable.

Now we come to the Queer view. Until recently, I did not know that one of my main character in another book was gay. Most have already met Nathin. He will have 4 children by book 3, all different mothers, but he is faithful...can we say oxymoron. His first child, his son, we meet at the age of 16. Nathin loves his children, but there is a distance between him and his son. His son would rather be out horseback riding with the guys, hunting, practicing swordsmenship, learning how to track animals and such. Nathin, being a magic user, obviously hoped that his son would follow in his footsteps. But he also understands that the gift is not always inheriated. There is a distance between the two that Nathin can not figure out.

Then about a year ago, it dawned on me...his son is gay. Not openly...not even admittedly yet. He prefers his male companions over the companionship of girls. His sister the only one he trust and confides in. She supports him and sticks up for him with Nathin, but she also sticks up for their father with her brother. She's a peace keeper so to speak. Nathin's mates already know or suspect and he is the last to figure it out and that is where I am going to have to have help on how this will play out. All of this will be a side issue to the main storyline of Desserron having fallen by then, and his son is the heir appearent. While the tribal leaders accept a gay king, will he have to marry someone to create his own dynasity, etc etc. The story line is that Nathin vanishes...his children carry own and try to take back the throne of Desserron. So the gay issue is a background piece, but I want to do it right and not the sterotypical stuff.

I have already run this by a friend and he thinks it will not work in Fantasy Fiction. I say it will. We have agreed to disagree on this. But I am not sure how much help he will be. My gay female friends will only be a limited help as like Loekie says, they have a different mindset. My current GF is unsure of the storyline at this point and she is a big fan of mine, as if my daughter. She too is unsure right now...maybe she just does not want to talk to dad about this stuff because I can be pretty explicit when talking to my children. I call it speaking directly so no one misunderstands.

Now...again...not having given this alot of thought until recently, I will have to do some reading and some talking to gay community members...especially those that went through something like this. I am not sure there will ever be a reconcillation between Nathin and his son...but they will come to terms.

Like I say...I am naive about some things, and more than experience on hetro aspects of relationships. Doctors says I have a much testosterone as a 21 year old. My GF would agree. But I have always been one that has to have emotional attachment with any relationship I am in. Have I had 1 night stands in the past, yes...and I was usually high or drunk back then. Did it do me or them harm...no, but then, it did do anything special for us neither that I can recall.

Ok...blast away on my naiveity.
Nick.

Nick,

I think the storyline concerning the gay king and his likely need to create an heir in one way or another is an excellent idea, and that it almost certainly will work in fantasy.

I say so based on statistics showing that the upcoming generation has never known a time when gays were totally closeted, they have gay friends from junior high on, and therefore lack all predjudice regarding gays. By the time the high school class of 2007 is 30, I can hardly imagine that most states won't have civil unions, or that a clear majority of people will look back and wonder what all the fuss over civil unions and sodomy was all about. Openness on this subject is growing fast.

And I also think that the primary readers of fantasy fiction are the younger age groups. The Harry Potter readers of today will want fully grownup versions tomorrow, and the kids of those 30 years will be even more liberal.

So write that storyline. The quicker its ready, the more timely it will be. History is ripening for you, friend.

billw

Both Nick and Bill bring up some interesting points I'll throw my 0.02 CND (0.001 US) worth.

First, Nick, you said:
Quote:


I wish more Canadian or American parents had that insight to pass on to their children! My parents were the same, since they came from Holland, from a war-torn country and started life over. They instilled that in me. They even adopted my sister from Haiti. I grew up not seeing the different in skin colour, sex, or sexuality. Certainly made me feel different growing up in a society built on prejudice.

Then you said:
Quote:


It was the same for me. I grew up in an Engineering environment (my father taught at McGill, I worked & studied there). You want a throughly homophobic environment! ::sad:: It kept me in the closet for the longest time. Even had a girlfriend which ended in a complete disaster. And one almost girlfriend that became a soap-opera.

At that time, I wrote only science-fiction. I had one gay character, which was alright because it was sci-fi and he was just an ancillary character, save one story. And that one story was met with scorn. So I know where you are coming from.

Now I am going to address Nathin's son. You say:
Quote:


Edward II was gay, yet he had kids. Oscar Wilde was gay yet he had kids. Being gay does not prevent procreating. It depends on the person. Let me give you some insight into a gay relationship, and I'll try to keep it from make people cringe.

When you have two men, you have a top and a bottom. The top is the one doing the inserting while the bottom is receiving. For some gay men, they are both top and bottom. Some are just tops or bottoms.

Tops can and do have sex with women. Bottoms are less likely to have a sexual relationship because of the "position" they want to be in. Pun intended! ::suprised::

Bluntly, I can have sex with a woman. I can get her pregnant. And there was one lesbian that had me on a list of potential candidates for a child she wanted to have. Thank god that never came to pass. Thing is, it just don't work for me. But, push come to shove, I can pass on my genes if I wanted to.

Throughout history, the gayness of a king was not the issue. As long as they had a woman, got her pregnant, leaving heirs, the nobles had no problems. The problem occurred more when the king started to flaunt his sexuality. It is the same for heterosexuals. Look at Prince Charles and Camilla.

Nick continues:
Quote:


First thing I say is "BULLOCKS!". Second thing I would say: "What the f**k? Why not?" But what you said speaks volumes. The current perception is that being gay is acceptable (now I get to Bill, for a moment). That is total utter shite, in my opinion.

Here in Canada we are supposed to more liberal than in the US. But I find myself being cautious at work with the young pups around. I have to grit my teeth at some of the homophobic comments or slights. I may be out but I'm not.

Gay bashing exists and usually done by young men. When I ride the public transit, late at night, or walk down a quiet street, I am constantly alert. I have lost track the number of times I have crossed a street or moved to another seat on the bus or subway because of vibes I was getting from a group of young men.

This isn't paranoia. Some years ago, a gay activist was knifed to death on a bus here in Montreal. A couple of months ago, a young gay man was found dead, hack to death. His body parts were in a few garbage bags. Welcome to my life.

Back to Nick:
Quote:


My advice is listen to them and me. But follow your gut with your characters. Let them tell you the path they will follow. When I came out, I was in my mid-30s. Some of the people who I thought would have no problems, had major problems, while some I thought would not be able to handle it, welcomed me with open arms. Telling me: "Finally, now I hope you will be happy." I lost friends while gained friends. It was surreal.

Finally you said:
Quote:


Huh? Okay, I think I am going to have to come over and give you a good slap. How could you believe that? I am touched by your honesty here. You are not naive but a product of your environment. Yet you see that. That rings loud and clear in your post. You are willing to learn, to listen. You would be surprised at how many people I have met that don't feel this way. So Nick, please stand up for a moment. I want to applaud you. You deserve it.

I will close on a bit of a down note. Bill wrote:
Quote:


Having had courses on stats, I have a very low opinion on stats. They are easy to skew and fit what people want them to say. As I wrote above, I live the life of a gay man having to look over his shoulder.

Depending on my shift, the bus I take to get to the subway or the morning subway, I hear many kids who are in high school. And let me tell you, they don't fit the stats. I lost count how many times these young kids would point to an effeminate man and say: "look that that f*g."

And over the past couple of weeks, it has intensified because of issues about the gay pride parade and events around it. These kids are a product of their environment. I hope you are right that by 2037, we will look back and wonder what the fuss was about but I honestly don't know for sure.

When I am downtown or on public transit, late at night, I am not worried about older people. It is the younger people who are looking around, seeking for someone to pick a fight with. They have not yet sublimated their prejudice.

So unlike you, Bill, I do not see many of the younger generation having liberal feelings. It is the same old, same old. Yet I am not cynical. Over the past few years, I have made my influence felt. Some of the people I worked with, when they found out the horrible truth I was gay, they started to see not every gay man is a threat or a predator.

I always go back to the civil rights movement. Great legal advances came from that movement, yet has it really changed the views of many Americans toward African-Americans?

Yeah, whoopie, civil unions are valid according to the law, but that does not change the mentality of the average citizen. It is an uphill battle, be you black, female, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Laws may validate you but it doesn't change the person who hates you?

I will now take a bow and step of my soapbox that is creaking heavily.

Wow, a fab discussion.

Quote:


Do you think this is rife in the gay community because of the nature in which most men think/behave? What I mean to say is, women are known to generally take the more submissive role, and put their men and families before themselves. Do you think that when the equation is man + man that this element is less apparent resulting in this �take, take� behaviour?

Having asked that, I am aware that there are plenty of women in the gay community who jump from woman to woman, playing on each ones feelings because they know how to manipulate them. It�s terrible.

Quote:


True. Minorities, however, are more likely to open their eyes up to other ways of life and other types of people, because they, themselves, have been highlighted as different. Although I am black, I do not attach that label onto any of the stories I create. I simply create, and then afterwards I come to realise what race that character is. It may be because I am influenced by the dominance of white characters/actors/writers, or by the fact that black people do not profile very much generally, or by the fact that the stories I used to read by black writers about black people, were simply crap. In a way I do feel that if I wrote about a black community, my work would be classed as 'Black Writing/Fiction', and that has a particular market and certain expectations that I'm not sure I want to fall into. But I do not feel that a black lead character would be well received.

I love the idea of exploring Nathin's son situation. I definitely think it would work. But as you already note, it just needs to be done correctly.

Quote:


I agree 100%. These relatively new laws do not change people's opinions they simply hide them from plain view.

There was an issue in England a little while back on Celebrity Big Brother. One of the 'celebrities' was British girl from a low-class white background, who's popularity came about from her bring in one of the previous Big Brother's. Anyway, she began to make racial slurs toward an Asian Bollywood star and putting her down simply because she did not know anything about her. All she saw was the colour of her skin. This caused a major uproar in India, because the Celebrity was a massive star in their country - equal to Julia Roberts and such.

My point is, in this girls view - it was completely acceptable and normal to behave this way towards someone who looked or behaved different to her. AND THIS IS THE WAY MOST PEOPLE FROM HER BACKGROUND AND AREA THINKS. And this fact was really highlighted to those who felt that racism is a small problem nowadays.

Homophobia is an even bigger problem. I don't think people's attitudes (or should I say fear) will change for a long time. Even though these laws are in place, those who are suppose to be enforcing them have their own opinions. I do feel, though, that the younger generation (particularly those living in big cities) are more exposed to diversity. But how they choose to handle it is really the question.

Scribble

I think most of our discussions here are fab. The fun thing is just the diversity of topics and view points.

You said:
Quote:


I don't like to generalize, too much. Personally, I feel it is how we are brought up. Monogamy, in my view, is an artificial social structure. Like most animals, both men and women like to sow their wild oats. But as some animals have, monogamy has become part of the social structure.

Thing is, with gay men, there is no "danger". Or gay women. With straight men, there is the danger of suddenly have kids. This puts an element of "risk" for a straight guy which I don't have (we will leave diseases for another post). So gay men can run around like bunnies, in gay abandon and not worry about a knock on the door a few years later and have a surprise bundle of joy.

And I do believe men look at sex differently than women, in general. Since, generally, they are the "dominant" factor in the sexual pairing, their needs are more important than the partner's. Their orgasm is the focus, and if the partner had fun, bonus.

Then you bring up:
Quote:


Here I have only a small sample set. I find the lesbians I know form an amorphous group of ex-lovers. Which does lead to a bizarre inter-play of game playing and bed-hopping. As you say, terrible.

Yet it isn't just gay women, I have seen the same in straight relationships. Even as friends, I found women are better at playing with other people's feelings, manipulating people like puppets. I have a horror story of one women who did that to me, in the end almost destroying me. But that is another story completely.

I'm not saying that men aren't into doing the same. A couple of guys played with my feelings, leading to hurt and pain. But there is a difference between men and women here. Most men have a simple game plan. If things don't work out, they move on. Men are more in the immediate, imo.

Quote:


Here I don't agree. I will use the black community as an example. One would think that with the struggles blacks have had here in North America and Europe, they might be more open to the struggles of gay people, but many aren't. Some of the most homophobic (and sexist) commentary comes from hip-hop and rap. Black leaders want nothing to do with standing up for gay rights. Many bristle when a comparison is made between gay rights and the civil rights movement.

Agreed, our struggles are different. As a gay man, I do not have the constant, visible indication I stand out. I am invisible and can survive in society as long as I keep my sexuality deep in the dark regions. A black person cannot do that. But be it here in Canada or in the US, I have yet to see a black leader stand up and defend my rights as a marginalized minority.

Quote:


Here I agree. Like I said in my previous post, Nick's worry about Nathin's son not being accept as king, tribal lord, etc. etc. is not predicated on him being gay. It is predicated on having a healthy family line. As I said, Edward II had kids and based on historical information, loved them. What killed him was politics and a vengeful wife. Not being gay. And that is the tact Nick should look into.

Leaders have certain responsibilities. If they don't flaunt it, people will ignore it. This is something we forget in our 24/7 CNN world. Back in the days of old, the dalliances of the king or queen might be court gossip but the majority of the population knew naught of what was going on. It was only as enemies started to build up that one might have to worry about their sexuality. Which actually brings up an idea for another thread: sex and politics.

Quote:


It doesn't have to be relatively new laws. Look at Jim Crow and that goes back to 1865. What advances people like Lincoln made was constantly torn down. I am seeing that right now. The homophobes want us to be "equal yet separate".

Yet on the flip side, gay activists are demanding to be treated equally but are saying we have to stay distinct. They demand gay marriages yet defend the wanton multi-partner lifestyle most people perceive. They want to be treated as equals yet want to keep their bars men only, well no, gay only. No women or straight men are invited. They want their relationships to be acknowledged yet they do not defend the same rights for a heterosexual couple who have not gotten married and can't get the same civil rights.

With rights comes responsibility. Yet many in the gay community don't see it that way. They want their cake and eat it too. They demand more and more for themselves to the exclusion of others. I got into one argument with a gay activist about funding for research into HIV. He felt there wasn't enough. When I brought up things like breast cancer or diabetes, he was dismissive. The world had not done enough to fight this plague.

Yet I brought up, for most people in North America, HIV is self-inflicted. For most people, it is their lifestyle that puts them at risk. There is a simple method of not getting HIV. For most women, that ain't the case when it comes to breast or ovarian cancer.

I was revolted by his narrow-minded view. His cause was more important. I was stunned at the arrogance he had. Yet people like him, because he is vocal, become the picture of the gay community. More sane, humane voices like mine get drowned out by the radical minority. Our cause is more important.

Finally, my dear, you wrote:
Quote:


I just look at anti-semitism. That has been around for more than just a few years. Over the past year, here in Montreal, we have had a couple of fire-bombing of Jewish schools. Jewish grave-stones have been defaced. This has been going on for centuries. Active homophobia is only a few decades old.

Thing is, prejudice is prejudice. We are all infected by this. We are a product of our environment and upbringing. For me, the key is not laws but education. One person at a time.

I know in my lifetime, homophobia will be not disappear. If we don't kill each other and head out into the stars, it will still be with us. Unless there is a radical change in the human psyche.

For me, the most important thing is that we, as individuals, have to recognize our prejudices. I have mine. You have yours (addressing all the readers, not just Scribble). All I can do is address my faults. And if that touches other people and slightly reorients them, bonus. No law in the land can make that kind of difference.

Surprisingly, i rarely thought of pregnancy as a hetero risk. I mean it is, but funny how i'd not really put that picture together.

Civil rights have been accomplished in many ways, and i'm pretty grateful because i feel my fellow men and women deserve a life of political and social equalities. Society as a large slow moving animal seems to have a difficult time integrating multiplicity, but instead puts its various elements into a rotation. So, instead of simultaneous equality it seems like society accomplishes the "my turn" episode.

HBO had a sex film, not real sex, but one focused on gender differences -- oh! here it is:


one of my favorite things about this show was a comment a biologist made, here it is paraphrased:

"there are as many sexualities as there are people . . . nature loves multiplicity, but society hates it."

With this in mind, i turn to Loekie's final paragraph -- which reminds me of a subtle point i tried making to others yesterday as a d********g menaced the forums with a slew of fake profiles and very harmful comments (like racial, rape and pedaphiliac threats). Yesterday the forum responses reminded me a lot of the Twilight Zone's first season, 22 episode called "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street."

The episode can be understood as a response to the Red Scare, and now we can compare it to the scare of Terrorism that is gripping many Mid-eastern families that live in the USA (and are US citizens) -- but mainly the episode highlights prejudices. So it equally applies to homophobic reactions, and racial violence, stubborn traditional values that fail to embrace the new age.

Here's the closing statement Rod Serling said:

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts... attitudes... prejudices. To be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is... that these things cannot be confined to... The Twilight Zone."

see link:


everyone watch this episode if you've never seen it. Sci Fi Channel always does a marathon now and again, especially around new years eve.

Of course, it isn't directly dealing with gay rights, but we are intelligent individuals and we are capable of gleaning the major points and issues that are the engine (if not just the exhaust) of such topics.

Multiplicity is natural, society hates it, nature loves it. It's like Galileo ordered to house arrest by Pope Urban VIII (1633, was it?):

The joke in my philosophy of religion studies was that officials make galileo sign a document that states the heliocentric model is not true and is herectical to pursue its advocacy, that the earth does not move around anything. So he signs, "the earth does not move," and he leans to the official and he says unofficially "It still moves," and hands him back the paper.

Why in gods name did i see galileo, twilight zone and blurred gender lines all related?
I think everything's related, to be honest.

it's like any social group advocating that another is not equal, the ideas of one person, one group is not the dominant ideas of the social structure, the ideas threaten some social order -- tear down the social structure that "protects" everyone and sure enough everything is game. but instead of redefining itself, society (its constituent members, primarily the majority, actually) time and again ignores opportunities to grow , expand its consciousness, redefine it's worth and its goals and its future as an all encompassing and successfully active moving system toward a higher purpose.

Can you imagine this: society's goals do not include the best benefit for everyone.
the human body one day decides that it was wise in ignoring the pleas of its hungry stomach. I feel like Society is a human body with an eating disorder.
"sorry, stomach. cry all you want but i'm not acknowledging your needs."

Maybe the body is a copraphobic, fears s**t. Society always ignores the s**t it produces. But what do you and i do every time we take a s**t? We look at it. we make sure it's normal s**t because we are interested in our health. Imagine society is a human body that not only ignores its s**t, but ignores itsstomach, has an eating disorder because its afraid to produce s**t, but as a result, society eats its own body and thu the s**t it is making is a result of broken down social order. that's the worst kind of s**t.
Stomach replies: "dude, acknowledge me and i'll make you a better body and together we can produce the kind of s**t that is good and natural, the kind of s**t that indicates that everythign is normal. the kind of s**t that fertilizes the gardens that feed us and make us stronger."

So we have to learn to socially recognize so that we are not under house arrest and society takes off without us because of some fear of unknown prejudice, fear of change, fear of self, fear of s**t -- whatever you wanna call it.

Adam: Quote:


I suspect that is one of the problems, especially in the US. Sex-ed is poor in the US, compared to places like Holland. There young people are taught about sex and at the same time, responsibility. Abstinence is discussed but not in a religious way. Condom use is discussed, but not as an answer to everything. How the pill works in a woman's body is explained. So teen pregnancy is low in Holland and other countries that take a balanced view on sex-ed.

I have friends in the States who have sons & daughters and I am at times shocked by the lack of knowledge they have. Even worse, often the onus is on the woman because the guy doesn't like the feel of a condom. But I am digressing.

Adam paraphrased a biologist saying: Quote:


How true, how true. For me, part of the issue is the aspect of control. Humans like to catagorize, label, pigeon-hole, making things more controllable. That is part of my problems with most of the organized religions on there. We are trying to have homogeneity whereas nature celebrates diversity.

Now onto The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. written by Rod Serling, first broadcast 3/4/60. (Yeah, I'm a Twilight Zone geek). A chilling examination of neighbor turning on neighbor when brought up against inexplicable events. And yes, it was taken as a response to the Red Scare at the time (it starts that way), but most people missed the most chilling aspect of the teleplay, the end.

For me, the ending exposes the power structure and how it uses hysteria to control people (I won't give spoilers). We see that over our history, be it political or religious leaders.

Look at the rhetoric against homosexuals. Giving them equal rights, allowing to adopt or get married with destroy the very fabric of our society. And people lap it up. They get hysterical, seeing their great country would descend into a lawless, atheistic country run be large lesbians (with bad hair) and gun control. And heaven forbid, free health care! The socialists would have finally won.

Yet on the flip side of the coin, the gay community ain't doing too much to counter the rhetoric. They want the rights yet defend things like bath-houses and the circuit parties (2 to 4 day long raves). The conservatives try to paint the picture that gays are out there in wild abandon yet gays don't stand up and point back, going: "Huh? What about you guys?"

A good example is the circuit-parties. This is a rave that moves from city to city, usually on long weekends. The goal is just to screw around. Massive amounts of drugs are consumed so the people can dance for 2 to 3 days in a row, and have sex as often as they want. The scariest thing I heard is something called "crystal dick". It seems that crystal meth prevents a man from getting an erection, so they started to use things like Viagra to they can have sex.

Now circuit-parties are old hat for the gay world. But as they grew in popularity, it spread over into the straight world. Yet this is not talked about. All too often, members in the gay community don't put a mirror up to the straight world and have them look deep and hard into it. Yeah, gays screw like bunnies, but so do straights.

Enough of a tangent here. Adam then brings up some points about social groups and society. For me, that is one of the key problems that ails our society. From the onset, as kids, we form groups. And the groups become exclusionary. We see that first from our parents, then pushed on us in school.

Immediately we are ingrained with the idea we need to be part of a group. If not, there is something wrong with us. No one wants to be a loner. Yet a group demands homogeneity. And it demands the fostering of the idea we are better than the other groups. By the time we become adults, it is so part of us, we don't see it.

Let me give a political example. In Canada, we have three main political parties plus a few smaller ones. They are drawn on ideological lines, but they are a bit blurred. Yet in the States, there are Republicans and Democrats. And the line is quite sharply drawn (in my view).

Some years ago, actually in Carlsbad, NM, I was talking with some of the locals, over a beer. They wanted to know if I was red or blue. They were confused when I said neither. In social areas I am more Democrat, whilst in economic areas I am more Republican. They just couldn't get it.

I abhor social groups at a large level. Part of the reason I never got involved with the gay community was the politics and attitude. Most gay groups will not accept straight people. They like to whine and complain about the state of affairs but don't do much, except during Gay Pride.

I've said enough, and I have to go to work. In closing, I agree with Adam about social groups. They exist to provide order, which can be good but in the wrong hands, just entrench prejudice.

First a side note. Our problem with the democrats and republicans is that they agree on just about everything (they were at one time the same party to be exact). A second side note there are some people who like to be loners (I'm one of them).

On to the point however.

I do agree we need better sex education (it wasn't allowed in my class to even mentioned the words 'condom' or 'birth control pill' only abstinence. Couldn't even talk about how things worked etc though they covered that in health class anyway though). Will also say that one of the greatest friends I've ever had was a gay man and he was quite understanding on where we stood (even if he is still convinced I'm gay and just not willing to admit it).

Will say I am repulsed by the frivilous sex of many of the more apparent gay men (I'm not exactly 'sex after marriage only' but I'm certainly against blind promiscuity(sp))

For any society to work requires of course equality and education. Without both the society will be in chaos or be forced under rigid, unfair and often disastrous laws(read rebellions etc).

However I'm not entirely certain that groups are necessarily a bad thing. Exclusion in them above all else certainly is but there will always be some forms of groups. (People who are alike naturally spend more time together in most instances. So I guess I basically agree here too.)

I think that a large part of the issue however is the sheer amount of media assault on the whole issue (They estimate advertising is very close to the 100% saturation at this point) and these come not only with brands, fashion and body image but also enforce what society views as 'normal' wether it be color, actions, or sexuality.


A few other things I'd like to say but it's going to take me some time to articulate them hope to get back to you soon.

On a final side note, if you get a chance Loekie I'd like to 'talk' with you for a bit about a few subjects privately (and at a bit faster pace then this if possible, talk is of course in quotes because I don't actually plan on physically talking as I don't often give out my phone number.) Anyway take care until next time.

I'll address Tealeaf's points tomorrow. But I wanted to accentuate a point about hysteria that Adam brought up and I addressed.

I am constantly reading diverse sites. The following comes from the Real Truth magazine, from The Restored Church of God. The following is a unedited, direct quote from part of an article that they have on corruption:
Quote:


This just goes to show the hysteria some groups will go to. Of course, they do not address the issue of both parents having to work to pay the bills, leaving their kids in front of the TV and fending for themselves. That, to me, is more destructive that little Danny having two fathers.

What annoys me with this rhetoric is that it is completely divorced from the reality of our history. In the Old Testament, Abraham had his first child with Sarah's servant. Yet that did not destroy his family. Solomon, David, etc. had wifes and concubines and oodles of kids, yet the society survived. Many kings and queens had illegitimate children, yet their nations weren't destroyed.

Over the past century, there has become a fixation on the only, one true family unit is one man and one woman. And the idea of true love. Yet over the past n thousand of years we have existed, this was not the case. All too often, marriage was and still is, a social construct for acceptance of a relationship. Until recently, it often involved aspects like property rights and social status.

I know Leah wants to hear why I am against gay marriages. This is a hint. This weekend, I will try to put my points in a semi-coherent way so you guys/gals can have a field day. Let the fun begin!