GUYS!A little self-discipline!

[garrix]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

I brought up Michel Foucault(sp?)a while back.He posits that some things get defined&then,PEOPLE ACT OUT THE DEFINITION.Reality is always muddier than that.

This is very very true, unfortunately. Stereotypes propagate themselves, especially in this country (US) . Those stereotypes so prevalent in all high schools are merely so prevalent mostly because of media and its constant blasting of identities, stereotypes and personas which people endless imitate and mold their behavior around. (from "ghetto" to "jocks" to "preps") all horrifyingly artificial and as far as im concerned, frighteningly de-humanizing.

And now i will say something bound to be unpopular. I consider myself a tolerant person, and obviously i have no more against the gay man than i do the heterosexual man, but what i am disappointed by in the gay community is the prevalence of stereotypes, and the acceptance of those stereotypes. I no more want gay people to act straight as i want straight people to act gay, again, sexual orientation is of no importance, but what does disappoint me is when males place artificial inflections in their voice, just as it frustrates me when a girl speaks with artificial inflections in her voice and speaks like ?a valley-girl?. When people are so willing to live out someone else's manufactored identity, it strikes me as a weakness in mind, or a lost identity, either way, very sad. This does not mean i wont be friend them, or anything, and its nothing i've noticed anyone hear do, either, its just a sidenote, i suppose. These are complex issues, no doubt, but i try to avoid people whose perception and behavior is modeled by a stereotype, no matter.

[glammaman2000]

is a coping mechanism.One who affects upper-class behavior as a defense to being classified as the"lowest of the low".Gay people are particularly susceptible to external pressures because,unlike blacks,jews,etc.our parents,siblings,neighbors,friends&co-workers come from the"other camp".We're brought up with"their"values.We're a"found"community,if anything.&for people coming out,the fear of being RE-rejected by the new community leads to some pressure to be"one of the girls".&if you look&act "straight"you ARE straight,to most people.Only the"sore thumbs"stick out.&being a big ol'queen is FUN,sometimes!Just ask Wesley Snipes.

[deetrakt]

One thought--unlike blacks, but like Jews, gay people who do not exhibit stereotypical "gay" traits or affect stereotypical "gay" styles of clothing or grooming may not be recognizable as gay not only to straight people but to many other gay people. Thus, garrix, when you complain of stereotypical behavior by gays, realize that the many who don't exhibit it may be invisible to you out of a "gay context".

I'm Jewish and I can't tell you how many times non-Jews have complained to me as a fellow non-Jew about Jews--o,r guessing I might be Jewish, told me how nice it is that I don't look Jewish or act Jewish (meaning big nose, competitive, money-grubbing, etc.)

On the other hand, while most (but not all) black people are recognizable as such to everyone, many middle-class black people find it necessary to gain "street cred" in some contexts by affecting speech or dress they otherwise wouldn't. Witness Randy's embarrassing "homeboy act" on American Idol.

[garrix]

yeah, i understand that,deetrakt, and thats perfectly fine to me if i have dont know whos gay or whos not (just like the jewish aspect) but im shocked that people would say those things about jewish people, at all in this day and age, in anything other than a joke. Im not practicing, or anything, but a large part of my family is jewish, so some of my friends have cracked jokes from time to time, but they're lighthearted. Honestly, i've never heard about that kind of behavior.... but im not exactly within the community or anything, so im pretty ignorant. Thats pretty disappointing.

[deetrakt]

I should have made it clearer that "Jewish stereotyping" is not the kind of thing I hear every day or week--and rarely in New York City, where i live. But I have heard it frequently enough over the years, especially in areas where there aren't many Jews.

I've travelled a lot on business and am often amazed at the kinds of things I hear said about Jews, gays, blacks. almost any group you can think of. Maybe it's because I'm a good listener, but people seem to want to tell me exactly what they think. I remember an executive in Mississippi asking if I were Jewish and then saying how much he admired "your Jewish people, how good they are at business and the way they keep their businesses in their families." I think he meant it as a compliment, so I just nodded and focused on getting out of the state soon.

I recently ended a friendship of years and years with someone I used to work with. Ever since she and her husband moved to Greenwich, Connecticut, and she stopped working and started being a "lady who lunches", she's become more closed-minded and boring. I hadn't realized how far it had gone until she confided to me "how uncomfortable (we are) with how Jewish Greenwich is getting". If a suburb gets too Jewish, she explained, it begins to lose its exclusivity. She lamented that "her" town (in which she's lived maybe 10 years) has gotten so showy, everyone adding onto their houses, buying their teenagers BMWs. You know, she said, you know what I mean. I tried to question why she was equating nouveau riche and Jewish, since most of the newcomers aren't Jewish, rather corporate executive transfers, but realized I was talking to myself and that we no longer had much if anything in common.

Anyway, stereotypes are almost impossible to avoid, but I really try. As a gay, bald, left-handed Jewish man, I feel like I have to! (Applying all of those criteria, there are maybe 50,000 people in the world in my "category".)

[glammaman2000]

...for I am also....left-handed.

[ashleydelfin]

In fact, there has been a MAJOR change from ancient times to now. Heidegger explains it: in Greece, man existed because he perceived the world around him. Nowadays, the world exists because man perceives it. IOW, man has come from depending on the world to making the world depend on him. (Somewhere between these two were the Middle Ages, where all pretty much depended on God)

(Heidegger actually makes your head hurt when you read it)

SO, by making the world depend on mankind (although I really should be saying "humans" as not to sound sexist) science is used to try to adapt nature to the needs of man. If you think about it, the thriving ancient civillizations were those that adapted themselves to their environment. Nature was something to adapt to. Modern Age thinks of nature as something that needs conquering. (I should also specify this concerns Western civilization).

So, getting back in topic, sexuality for the Ancient Greeks was completely different. They didn't think in terms of "homosexual" and "heterosexual". They had sex with women to reproduce, fell in love with other men and had sex with them (there was also the belief women were inferior and why on earth would you want to have sex with someone inferior?). Following this line of thought, no one in ancient times can be considered "gay", the concept can't fit anyone on the era. They did have homosexual relationships, but that is another thing altogether.

In the middle ages sex was pretty much for reproducing, cuz, you know, God said so. Since gay sex is OBVIOUSLY not for reproducing, then it was condemned as a sin.

The modern concept still has a lot of baggage from the middle ages, but science has changed its focus. In the middle ages, studies were geared to show it was a disease, modern day science varies depending on what the scientist is trying to prove (because, scientific data isn't as definite as many would like to think, it is also open to interpretation).

I'll stop now, because if I keep on going I'll just confuse myself and before I know it I'll go off on some tangent and start talking about radioactive kittens or something...

And on the whole stereotype thing, I wrote an essay about a year and a half ago on what I thought on the "gay" stereotype. It's on my Livejournal because it is long (so don't say you weren't warned). Also, it is rant-ish... so please don't hate me because of it. And =P at stereotyping, really, like I said, if you're 2D enough to define yourself by ONE thing or dumb enough to think that of others, then you must not be a very interesting person.

Deetrakt: I agree with you! It's sad how people can be prejudiced and not know it (denial, anyone?). It's specially tough with friends, because these are people you care for.

Avoiding stereotypes, I agree with you. But don't you think that by purposely trying to avoid a stereotype you can also end up doing stuff you don't want to do, or end up disliking an activity you used to love. I suppose you mean to be yourself and not care what your activities are labeled as.

Otherwise you end up taking so much time trying to prove what you're not and there aren't any clues as to what you really are.

(and gods... long post... *is sorry*)

[Mdlftr]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

Deetrakt: I agree with you! It's sad how people can be prejudiced and not know it (denial, anyone?). It's specially tough with friends, because these are people you care for.

Avoiding stereotypes, I agree with you. But don't you think that by purposely trying to avoid a stereotype you can also end up doing stuff you don't want to do, or end up disliking an activity you used to love. I suppose you mean to be yourself and not care what your activities are labeled as.

Otherwise you end up taking so much time trying to prove what you're not and there aren't any clues as to what you really are.

(and gods... long post... *is sorry*)

Really good discussion going on here.

Growing up, in a town outside Pittsburgh, there were A LOT of different ethnicities around. I've heard the lines, "Oh, they don't look....[fill in the blank]" or the cases where the speaker's voice drops to a whisper when they talk about "[those] people". It's sickly amusing that just about EVERY group gets / gives that kind of response at one time or another.

What's encouraging is that today, most people are aware of how something sounds/comes across/is perceived and they think twice (usually) before engaging in blatant stereotyping/racial/cultural/ethnic/gender/slurs.

Stereotyping is a simplistic way of looking at the world. It can be used to try to "understand" the "OTHER". "They" are different from "Us" and have different beliefs/behaviors/colors/smells/foods/clothes. As our world becomes more global, it seems like we are becoming more informed about "people who are not like us". That's a good thing, because, frankly, we WILL be working with "Those people" attending school with "those people" "worshipping/or not" with "those people".

Diversity is not always easy to accept, but it's the reality of life today. I see these conversations where prejudice is revealed (and, hopefully addressed or acknowledged as such) as the inevitable steps in a process of mutual understanding.

Mdlftr
Who loved that old Coke commercial, "I'd like to teach the world to sing/in perfect harmony....."

[deetrakt]

Interesting points from both Ashley and Mdlifter.

I don't spend very much time evaluating my stereotypical thinking--just when I catch myself and don't think it's OK, I try to do better.

What's weird is that beyond racism, sexism, etc., I think another reason everyone stereotypes so much is "efficiency". It's natural and efficient to deal with things in categories and act accordingly. ( "If I hire that Asian woman, she's probably good in math.")

The problem is, in the interest of efficiency, we sometimes tend to ignore individual cases that challenge the stereotype. Or more compicated cases. I remember having a conversation with someone who said "I couldn't believe it when I learned Madeleine Albright (sp?), former US Secretary of State, turns out to be 100% ethnically Jewish. She's so Waspy." Well, it turns out that all four of her grandparents were Czech Jews who for one reason or another ignored or concealed their religion. She in turn claimed to have no idea until someone informed her. Add a little denial, an un-Jewish upbringing and four years at Wellesley (another stereotype)--et voila!

This subject mostly interests me because it reflects how hard it is to be aware of one's blind spots and prejudices. I find this particularly interesting in light of some of the discussion on this forum of homosexuality, bisexuality, straightness, muscle fetishes, etc.

OK, enough. It we could post muscle pictures again, I wouldn't be going on like this.

[glammaman2000]

...all the world's problems;prejudices&divisions would be solved if we could just post muscle pictures,again!It seems so clear!....

[garrix]

Ashley- very interesting! I have tried to read Heidegger before- some stuff about "a thing-in-itself", and the cherry tree, and such... it did hurt my head after a while. After re-reading it like 5 times was like "hey i get it!, wait, wait... crap, i lost it"

...i don?t disagree with you, but in my post what i was trying to point out (though not explicitly) to Corwin was that there are basically two ways think of the origin of sexuality- either socially I] independent [/I] (ie. like an individuals sexuality is innate, unchanging and unaffected by society, which is a popular belief among many in the homosexual community-- or that sexual preference is socially dependant- which is essentially what you have assumed in your paper- it looks like. Now the socially dependent position would not be popular for many reason, as it would say, essentially that your preferences is a result of society and how you were raised.

Personally, i think its usually neither of these alone which causes sexual preference, but a little of both. But that?s my opinion.

Deetrakt - very interesting about Madeline Albright... thanks for posting that!


And the stereotype thing... it hits on that existentialist theme of humans trying to impose order on disorder, to simplify the complex, the absurdity (ahhh philosophy is creeping up on me again!) of human nature to endlessly categorize so we can digest knowledge and information. Racism, sexism, stereotypes are the results of this simplification ran amuck.

Its necessary part (this simplification of ideas) for understanding a lot of things, for example, what is hot, vs. what is cold- even though there exists a seemingly infinite number of degrees of coldness and hotness, when i say "this water is hot? you immediately get an idea. You could almost blame language for this simplification, and that wouldn?t be a big leap.

Anyway, enough of this rambling? i agree with everyone else, i wish we'd have the muscle growth images section open and running again... sad

[glammaman2000]

...that homosexuality is innate because I was having "urges"towards attractive guys I DIDN'T EVEN LIKE as people;long before I even heard the WORD homosexual.Some ducks are gay.I don't think satan is sidling up to them,saying,"get a load of Quacky's ass!".Ultimately,even if it IS a choice;it may be protected by the Bill of Rights.They do not just protect innate qualities.People are allowed to choose a religion,no?

[deetrakt]

See, I had heard rumors. And that he was seeing the GEICO gecko. But then I thought, maybe they're not gay, just bi or bi-curious. Anyway, I don't like their chances for marriage. I mean, a duck and a lizard? Now that's unnatural. Plus, maybe they're only appreciating each other's musculature. In a buddy kind of way.
Why label them? Don't they have it tough enough, being major stars yet imaginary?

Also, what Bill of Rights? Oh, that one.

[ethernet_jock]

the gecko is so gay...

I mean - that "robot" dance that he does so well?!

[garrix]

there are tons of cases of homosexual or bisexual behavior in the animal kingdom, both in the wild and in captivity, but scientists keep that quiet because of the scandals and controversy that would inevitably result. They have gay penguins at a zoo in New York. I learned this from the daily show.

[glammaman2000]

...there are TWO male couples at the Central Park zoo&another pair at the Coney Island Aquarium.As for the AFLAC duck;we never dated&have no mutual friends.

[deetrakt]

I note that glamma's most recent post makes no mention of the gecko. A conspicuous omission. Suggestive.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not personally acquainted with the gay NY penguin couples. However, there's a single gay male penguin at the Aquarium...ah, but that's a story for another time.

[omelissokomos]

Bisexual women "pressured to be lesbians"

Yet another study, but this time based primarily on interviews.

[ethernet_jock]

*snore*

study study study... what does it get you?

[ashleydelfin]

well, yes, there are cases of bisexuality and homosexuality in other species and scientists don't really keep it quiet, they just say that it's a delicate subject. Yes, some penguins (and flamingos, and babboons) show homosexual behaviors, but there's also animals that eat their young, eat their mates, kill their young when feeling threatened, etc. So, really, it's not that simple...

[glammaman2000]

...male giraffes&killer whales are PREDOMINATELY homosexual!They have just enough sex with the females to continue the species.As god intended.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

*snore*

study study study... what does it get you?

Knowledge. As someone with a degree in psychology, I know how to read these studies. Psychologists talk in studies -- study X says something, study Y says something else. The issue is what was the methodology, the statistics, the hypothesis and the tests.

I've had very interesting conversations about the newest study out of Bailey's lab. Unfortunately, it seems that you and others here are incapable of such discussions. Science is not the enemy. It advances knowledge. If you prefer to remain in ignorance, go ahead. It doesn't suprise me at all.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

well, yes, there are cases of bisexuality and homosexuality in other species and scientists don't really keep it quiet, they just say that it's a delicate subject. Yes, some penguins (and flamingos, and babboons) show homosexual behaviors, but there's also animals that eat their young, eat their mates, kill their young when feeling threatened, etc. So, really, it's not that simple...

Eating young is not a sexual act. Sexual acts really are simple -- you get off on the same-sex or the opposite (or both). It ain't complicated at all.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...male giraffes&killer whales are PREDOMINATELY homosexual!They have just enough sex with the females to continue the species.As god intended.

I've been ignoring the forum for a while, and am kinda surpised to see this thread continue. But...

Sexuality, as a means of procreation, has been the main driving force for human kind, and other species, for recorded history. Only until fairly recently, historically, has controlling reproduction been an option or even desirable. Infant mortality, the need for workers, etc has forced humans to obfuscate things like innate sexual orientation in favor of the pressure to reproduce. In ancient Greece, people could play with same-sex partners, but they were expected to create new workers to tend the fields and fight the battles in the next generation. Personal desires and attractions didn't factor into it -- you fucked the opposite sex to make babies. But in modern society, things have changed. Populations in western societies have grown and stabilized. Infant mortality is imperceptible and we have an ample and stable work force. Societies need to produce more babies had run up against a limitation of jobs and resources. Controlling reproduction, through birth control and legalized abortion, allows us to look beyond the reproductive destiny of women and appreciate them as something other than servants, wombs, and the property of men. Stable populations also permit societies to recognize other aspects of humanity. Those other aspects include a notion of sexual orientation, a luxury not afforded to us prior to the industrial revolution (comments about the middle ages not withstanding). The need to force all men to have babies is gone.

As I have pointed out, deviant sexualities are now understood in the scientific community to be natural. The construction of same-sex attraction and opposite-sex reproduction can be understood within a historic context that required everyone to reproduce. The non-deviance of same-sex sexuality is acceptable to communities that move beyond a blind faith and are willing to be educated. Scientific discovery and research brought us to that point.

The modern shame, as I see it, is when we excuse the behavior of the guy who fucks the woman while fantasizing about fucking the man -- his hard-on dependent on the lie that some woman believes. Such a lie is inherently harmful. If you look at what the Chicago/Toronto study indicates, there are lots of men living that lie -- the bisexual behavior hypothesis not demonstrated because a majority of men in the study who identify as bisexual behave as either straight or gay, sublimating their actual desires to a subjective one that they can accept. For a site that is basically gay male pornography to enable that behavior in its less-accepting contributors seems to me to be hurtful on any number of levels -- not only to the women being used, but also to the larger society that hides the existence of same-sex desires.

[ethernet_jock]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Knowledge. As someone with a degree in psychology, I know how to read these studies. Psychologists talk in studies -- study X says something, study Y says something else. The issue is what was the methodology, the statistics, the hypothesis and the tests.

I've had very interesting conversations about the newest study out of Bailey's lab. Unfortunately, it seems that you and others here are incapable of such discussions. Science is not the enemy. It advances knowledge. If you prefer to remain in ignorance, go ahead. It doesn't suprise me at all.

Corwin - Again, you are so wrong. I don't hate science... I LOVE science. The epitome of my style of thinking is logic, deductive reasoning, and complex logical and mechanical systems. Science and Sciences in all forms were the only courses that I excelled in at schoool because they were the only ones I found interesting enough to actually attend and pay attention to. I was passing AP Physics in high school my sophmore year with an A+.... Math and Science are the only reason why I actually graduated at all.

Psychological studies with a false basis (stated theory) or a clear biased intent are the TRUE enemy of everything that is scientific and logical. That's why I dispize these "studies"... because I'm smart enough to know what's really going on. I don't accept everything I read for simple surface fact.

Corwin, just because it's in print, and someone says it's true... doesn't mean it is. Life will teach you that, not books.

[LG2005]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...male giraffes&killer whales are PREDOMINATELY homosexual!They have just enough sex with the females to continue the species.As god intended.

If I had a Killer Whale's dick I think I'd be using it at all opportunities too. It would be worth a "study" and plenty of experimentation.

[LG2005]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

Corwin - Again, you are so wrong. I don't hate science... I LOVE science. ...

I've seen this over and over again.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Too much reading between the lines.

Corwin often makes very good points then blows his whole argument by making a negative semi-personal comment. Stop while you're ahead! Make your point from an objective non-acusatory point of view. You're good and smart I like to read your arguments but every time, you blow it with a poorly veiled negativism.

His "opponents" pick up on the negative semi-personal comment and ignore the good points that were made. To them I say: Stick to the logic of the argument and don't rise to the bait. The argument quickly degenerates into a whining "ooh, what you said" and a "but what I meant" free-for-all. The salient points get lost after the opening salvo.

[ethernet_jock]

excellent point LG... and the primary reason why I try to stay out of these things entirely.

Random personal attacks however - when I didn't say anything to him directly at all - are something I can't ignore.

He made a choice to pull out my 4-word post and call me stupid and tell me how much he believes that I don't care for science. I can't lay down and ignore that.

[glammaman2000]

...all the evidence indicates that animals have non-procreative sex.This includes your dog humping your leg.Or the couch.They do it because it feels good.I don't know what a male rhino thinks when he's on top of a female rhino,but I'll bet it's not,"I'M MAKING A BABY!"As for"deviant"sexual studies;there is a TREMENDOUS problem with getting"objective"results;becuse there is enormous"self-selection"on the part of participants.The"bi="study sought subjects through gay bars&publications.It may or may not be a genuinely representative sample of the overall bi population.Gay people are understandably mistrustful of"groups"wanting info.This has skewed stats about gay income(only relatively secure people would participate;slanting incomes upward)A study by the Wertmacher Institute showed gay people as 3%of the population.Conservatives jumped all over this;"See,it's NOT 10%!It's just a tiny band of...!"The Institute later clarified:"That's not what it proves.It just proves that;in a suburban setting;3% of people will tell a total stranger that they're gay".Not surprising,what with the wife right there&all.

[ethernet_jock]

Thank you Glam!! I think that's EXACTLY what I was trying to say about such "studies".

Remember what I said in an earlier post about "everything with a grain of salt"?

[The Magus]

Before seeing others do it more eloquently and rationally than I could have, I was going to post a bunch of stuff about how narrow these studies are, how the questions asked might only give part of the picture, etc., etc., and add some of my own experiences knowing bi men and women and how they've helped to form my opinion that human sexuality is irreducibly complex, meaning that, like a pair of scissors, to take any part of it away from the whole is to miss the point of what it is.

My own sexuality, as a case in point, has evolved through bi to gay, and now maybe back again. I've been jerking off to heterosexual stories about women being "bimbo-ized" lately, and I haven't figured out what that means for me as a gay man who considers himself to be a feminist. All I know is that until I figure out my own sexuality, it's not up to me to judge others'.

Anyway, while I think these sort of studies are important, it's even more important to remember that they can only provide part of the picture.

[omelissokomos]

Research: Third of study results don't hold up and Faked Research Results on Rise?

Now people have to do research on the research? Whatever happened to blindly accepting the say so for the powers that be?

/Gotta love Fark

[omelissokomos]

Wife sues man for loss of husband's love

/Desperate Housewives fodder.
//Would rather be posting my new drawings than links right now.

[glammaman2000]

have to learn how to read statistics.My favorite was a study that found that it was better to be fat than thin based on people's weights AT TIME OF DEATH!(it was refuted within 3 days of its appearance.)Just ask a few questions:how big(&broad)was the sample?How was the question phrased/WHO PAID FOR IT?(a big one)Science&surveys are very interesting.&remember;anecdotal does NOT mean"false".

[brent]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...
A study by the Wertmacher Institute showed gay people as 3%of the population.Conservatives jumped all over this;"See,it's NOT 10%!It's just a tiny band of...!"The Institute later clarified:"That's not what it proves.It just proves that;in a suburban setting;3% of people will tell a total stranger that they're gay".Not surprising,what with the wife right there&all.

I remember that study. Didn't it also claim that 11% of men had sex with other men?