Something like 18 Years ago I had a gay roomate, of course I know/knew all kinds of openly gay people, and have always been a sort of counter-culture fellow, so nothing unusual here. I did detect though in this guy, and in the gay community in other corners, kind of a strong grasping as something like an exclusively "gay identity"..thankfully as society has become gradually more accepting (though still a ways to go) it seems like gradually this gestalt Gay Identity seems to have simmered down a bit.
At this time though, there were things that were "gay" and things that were "straight"...and amusingly, this guy was far more militant than I would have ever been about whether someone was gay, straight, and whether or not they fit in these proper categories. I mean, he spent probably 4 times more time than I ever would worrying about sexual identity, maybe more. he so critical of other people, and a big part of it seemed to be based on his perception of what gay or straight people were supposed to be.
In my opinion, however, for those who don't experience this (I.E. straight kids), a perhaps even more dangerous process of ignorance and "taking for granted" of straight identity and heteronormative values can be so engrained and unchallenged that it's toxic. A massive blind spot for people who've never questioned their own attachment to their gender or sex, the result of which is far more insidious than the awkward second-adolescence of queer folks.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Great point for sure, though I think in reality all people question their sexuality to some degree, this is rarely publicly acknowledged. Definitely the standard thing seems to be repressing it, certainly it's an extremely small minority of (for instance) straight men who talk about ever questioning their sexuality, though in more candid environments it's been my experience that we do.
I guess it's heterosexual privilege basically..I see where you're coming from, I did not want to come off as one of "those" people, hope I haven't...
Thank you for being candid about your experiences, definitely some stuff to chew on.
Indrajala wrote:I guess this is the logical result of liberal democratic processes. Your citizens have the right to demand tolerance and recognition of their choices in life.
Still, what was once considered abnormal will become celebrated. Are there any restrictions? What about zoophiles? We consider that abnormal at the moment, but that could easily change. There's plenty of precedents for it in history and ancient cultures (and an underground culture in the present day which the internet has enabled to flourish).
Nilasarasvati wrote:And while there is more transparency and visibility of queers in Media, etc. To say that it's become "fashionable" sounds patronizing. Trivializing. Like saying the civil rights movement made Black people fashionable and now they're All over the TV!
And although I agree that social mores are all relative, it sort of sounds like you're comparing homosexuality on TV to zooophilia. Although both were once considered arch-taboos in most Western cultures, I have to say it's a strange (and probably repugnant) comparison.
Imagine how much pain and suffering they go through having to hide from the world the love they have for animals. If word got out, they might have their animals taken away and be sent to a mental hospital to be treated for mental illness.
Funny thing is that homosexuals in the west used to suffer the same problems in society. The grievances of both communities are almost identical.
Nilasarasvati wrote:All I know is that most people would only ever bring up this comparison with the socially conservative and moralistic agenda of making a slippery slope argument between homosexuality and legalized bestiality. I don't get the impression that you have that agenda at all, however. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Most bestiality is probably not based on good consent.
Indrajala wrote:For a lot of conservative people who prefer stable family arrangements (i.e., "marriage is for life"), it wasn't. If universal suffrage was never granted, we'd have different and arguably more stable family arrangements now, though women wouldn't have the rights and freedoms they presently enjoy.
Indrajala wrote:So, as the principle goes, you gain one thing and lose something else. You can't please everyone.
ball-of-string wrote:I really think a seperate thread debating the merits of zoophilia and polygamy is required. I see no logical connection between these topics and the OP. To try and force a connection seems really strange.
Dan74 wrote:Sorry to state the obvious but it seems to me that at the bottom of all this is the basic human need for companionship, tenderness, kindness and support. It is hard for me to imagine that zoophiles form deep relationships with the animals they copulate with. So to me it is a fetish, not a choice of a loved partner.
Nilasarasvati wrote:1. How do we see reincarnation as an aspect of/cause for the experiences of trans kids?
2. Gender binaries are strongly engrained into Buddhist scripture, practice, and most Buddhist cultures; how can trans individuals fit into the rigidity of such a system?
How are we as practitioners to include and affirm their identity and merit when so much of traditional Buddhism operates on a strong gender binary?
Also I want to again argue, Indrajala, that legal inclusiveness or protection of those who belong to oppressed classes is not "special privilege."
It's these kind of semantics that actually matter a great deal in discussions like this; it's also these kind of semantics that suggest to me that your observations really do have an agenda.
...but the subtle and pervasive bigotry, heterosexism, and racism that is the operating system of our entire society.
Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara and 13 guests