Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2002, 11:49 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Well, this depends. A lot of this study was done in Africa and in the remote Pacific islands. NOTE: I said anthropologists studied cultures with *no* built in sexual taboos. The cultures you have described have taboos already.

A theory on this was that thousands of years ago, tribal society was matriarchal. There was a mysticism surrounding the ability for women to bring on new life. Homosexuals were seen as mystical and were elevated to the status of holy men. Heterosexual men were at the bottom. However, men had brute strength on their side, got angry, and overthrew this model. To cement this model for all time, men of various world cultures created "creation myths" that cemented the position of women as always being subordinate to men and the cause of evil. Homosexuals were equally admonished as evil. Men were now the possessors of life; women just bear the incubating waters. Over the centuries, with most knowledge being passed on through oral tradition, those "myths" became seen as "truth." Hence, the structure became much of what it is today: heterosexual men on top, women subordinate, homosexuals on the bottom.

Some cultures, however, were remote enough that they were never exposed to this "coup."

Melon

Interesting hypothesis. But propounding it as a fact or even as strong as theory seems a bit much to me.
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 12:11 PM   #32
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:

Also, why assume that simply because two gay men are flirting that they will automatically have sex when they go home? I'm sure this assumption isn't made when a man and woman are flirting.

Yeah, you know I just can't stand to see all these straight couples holding hands on the street and hugging each other in public, even kissing each other goodbye! It's just terrible, I mean, it's their choice if they want to be straight, but do they really have to keep shoving it down everyone else's throat? Ugh. Make your own choices about your sexuality but don't make everyone else put up with it!

See how ridiculous it is when someone turns the tables and says exactly what you said about gay or lesbian couples about straight couples? Double standards. If only we could all accept that when two people love one another, that love is equally valid no matter whether it's between two men, two women or a man and a woman.

[This message has been edited by FizzingWhizzbees (edited 02-27-2002).]

Damn Fizzing... What is it with you and your Generalizing Accusations about people..

I never made any assumption that Gay Flirting leads to Gay Sex.. In fact, I made no reference to Flirting in my post at all.. I'd hardly call 'grinding' flirting, or a hand on an ass 'flirting', Don't put words in my mouth...

I don't have a problem with two men, or two women walking down the street just chillin', enjoying each other's company, Discretion is what I ask.. and I ask this due to my religious views... Which the majority of this country apparently shares.

Of course I'm going to make a judgemental response, because I think it is wrong, However, regardless of this point, I do not condemn it for others as they can do as they wish.. Like I said, I just don't think it is appropriate for public.. Again, according to my religious views..

You say there is a double standard.. Apparently not with me.. But of course you Knew That... I am not a partaker in PDA, nor am I 'shoving' heterosexuality down anyone's throat... I find excessive expressions of that sort to be stupid, and evidence of insecurity in relationships...Again..Of Course you know that already, because you feel you know me well enough to accuse me of a great many things... I guess you're that shady gentleman shadowing me across campus.

I apologize to interrupt this peaceful thread, but this was the second time in a week Fizzing has made specific Accusations against me, by proclaiming to know things that only my family would know about me.

L.Unplugged
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 12:13 PM   #33
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
All that to say, I'm not a fan of seeing pda whether it be male-female, male-male or female-female. Save it for later for goodness sake.
Well said, I tried to relay it coherently in my post above... Hahaha.. I realize, something that is not my strong suit.

L.Unplugged
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 12:25 PM   #34
Bad Daddy Johnny
 
Johnny Swallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,925
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
NOTE: I said anthropologists studied cultures with *no* built in sexual taboos. The cultures you have described have taboos already.
But Melon is it really possible to have NO built in Taboos? I mean even with other things such as racism, even among people that aren't racist there are still trace elements of it in the culture. I don't consider myself racist in the least but I still don't think that I act 100% impartial when it comes to race. It seems like even among cultures that don't have taboos there is still a bit lurking under the surface.

You think?
__________________
Johnny Swallow is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 12:55 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Interesting hypothesis. But propounding it as a fact or even as strong as theory seems a bit much to me.
This is a theory within anthropology. Perhaps this is my postmodernist leanings coming, but I never believe that anything is as fixed as "fact." Perceptions change through time.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 01:03 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Swallow:
But Melon is it really possible to have NO built in Taboos? I mean even with other things such as racism, even among people that aren't racist there are still trace elements of it in the culture. I don't consider myself racist in the least but I still don't think that I act 100% impartial when it comes to race. It seems like even among cultures that don't have taboos there is still a bit lurking under the surface.
Well, let's look at America, for instance. It is socially acceptable to have a mother, father, and children. We accept that. In some cultures, however, it is acceptable and encouraged to have a same-sex relationship and then get married to someone of the opposite sex. In some cultures, it is acceptable and encouraged to get married, but then have sex with anyone you want within your tribe.

This is what I meant by "no taboos." For Christian groups to go around saying that heterosexuality is the only thing natural in nature, that is a cultural construct. This argument of theirs could work if, in visiting these same cultures with no sexual taboos, that no same-sex activity was practiced. However, that is not the case.

Of course, I must reiterate that it is all theory. I'm just posting this as my opinion, and I welcome discussion.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 01:20 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
and I ask this due to my religious views... Which the majority of this country apparently shares.
If you are referring to Catholicism within America, about half support gay rights, which is obviously contrary to the Vatican.

Quote:
I am not a partaker in PDA, nor am I 'shoving' heterosexuality down anyone's throat... I find excessive expressions of that sort to be stupid, and evidence of insecurity in relationships...
I agree the same. I just get infuriated with double standards. That's all. Your original post was way more inflammatory. I think if you posted like this originally, you'd have received a better response.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 01:48 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,488
Local Time: 03:47 PM
It seems that Gay women are more accepted than men. It was even somewhat "chic" to be a lesbian in recent years (look at Anne Heche and Julie Cipher going from straight to gay to straight again as a sign of some women following a "trend" with their sexuality).
Gay women are more easily accepted also due to the "Howard Stern factor", if you will...the notion that 2 beautiful lesbians will invite a man to join them. We all know this is fallicy, but it is a fantasy for many men, but you don't often hear about a woman fantasizing about joining in with 2 men.
The PDA factor also favors women...as mentioned above it is socially acceptable for 2 women to dance, hug or kiss...but not generally so for men. For the record, I'm in the group who can do without PDA's of any kind.
__________________
Hewson is online now  
Old 02-27-2002, 02:33 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:47 PM
A few replies...

Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
if your theory is true Bubba then the majority of men are quite homophobic and that's sad. Hey here's a thought-- just drop porn altogether, that way you won't be arroused by men plus you'll have better chances at being a decent dude and future mate...
First, I don't thinks it homophobia.

As a quick example, Christians can be very tolerant of others who believe differently but still stand behind their own beliefs. Likewise, a heterosexual may be quite tolerant of gays and still want to fanatically avoid being aroused by homosexual porn.

Second, as 80sU2 pointed out, I never said I myself watch porn. I just have this theory as to why many heterosexual men prefer lesbian porn over heterosexual porn - a theory that can be reached through just a cursory knowledge of men.

And I've already expressed this theory to my girlfriend, because I DO believe it's an accurate explanation of the phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally posted by Calluna:
It may *seem* that way to you but things are not always as they appear. It *seems* to me that you are just taking unprovoked jabs at melon.
I generally don't take "things aren't always as they appear" as a sufficient explanation. If there *is* a good reason for an otherwise inexplicable act, I typically like to hear it.

Melon has since said it was a joke, and that's fine by me. It just struck me as odd enough to cause me to make mention of it.

And maybe my comment was probably unprovoked. Sorry about that.

Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Your point dosen't really make sense to me. Why would you be afraid of something that might accidentally arouse or excite you??

That makes as much sense as defecating in your own bed.
Simple: one would fear something that might arouse you because there are things that SHOULDN'T arouse you. Examples? Your own parents, children, and animals. Sexual attraction to such things is morally abhorrent and against natural laws.

And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

(Let me be the first to say that I do believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for humanity, and thus a sin. But just as murder is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, pedophilia is far worse than homosexuality. Murder and pedophilia should CERTAINLY be illegal; swearing and homosexuality should not. If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live.)

Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Ah yes...the ultimate hypocrisy. Yes, Bubba, this does make a lot of sense. Thanks for bringing it up.
Okay, melon understands my theory. Everybody else should have no difficulties.

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 02:38 PM   #40
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 02:47 PM
all i can say is, melon is right.

hehe but seriously...about the whole pda thing, i do think society tends to have a double standard towards it. (note i'm not referring to anyone in particular from the forum, nor am i trying to imply this.) while i don't see the problem with a little mild pda for any couple of any gender/sexuality (hand holding, and a little peck is all right, making out and groping is not) but with most people in society, straight couples seem to be able to "get away" with more pda activity than a gay couple. while it would take a heterosexual couple making out or something of the like to get an "ick" from the average person, for some, seeing so much as a gay couple holding hands can generate the same kind of "ick."
again, i'm not intending to name any names, i'm just saying if you were to, say, take a survey on what people can and can't stand seeing couples do in public. i could be wrong, but that's how it is where i live, at least.

------------------
she wore canvas shoes white canvas shoes, around her neck she wore a silver necklace...
ME! all day, every day!
"...a poptart in pants..." -- elizabeth
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 02:46 PM   #41
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy)
so basically you're saying every homosexual couple has to go to some private place where they're absolutely sure not a single soul can see them so much as kiss each other on the cheek, because it's so abnormal?
i don't see the differences in human sexuality to be that big of a deal. what i mean is, if a person's homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual...hey, that's their choice. as you said, live and let live.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 04:03 PM   #42
Acrobat
 
S|aney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oprah's kitchen
Posts: 341
Local Time: 12:47 PM
I think that both gays and lesbians are equal victims in America. Until they BOTH receive the right to marriage, medical benefits and any other equal legal status, America will continue to live in a discriminate state of mind.

It is disgusting how these two communities are discriminated against. The Christian Coalition* wants you to believe that if they give the gay and lesbian community the same rights as heterosexuals, they will be receiving "special" rights. This is a lie!

They not only deserve equal rights, it is also their human right! Just because the Christian Coalition* thinks homosexuality is a sin, doesn't give them the right to strip anyone of their legal rights.

As Americans, how can we stand by and watch so many people get cheated out of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?LP/platform/sexualrights


* Although I am a Christian, I strongly oppose the Christian Coalitions' arrogant notion that they represent the entire Christian community. They DO NOT represent the unconditional love that Jesus brought to the world. Jesus offers unconditional love and acceptance. The Christian Coalition offers bigotry and discrimination.

---------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness......

......And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--John Hancock
The Declaration of Independence


[This message has been edited by S|aney (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________
S|aney is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 04:33 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by S|aney:
I think that both gays and lesbians are equal victims in America. Until they BOTH receive the right to marriage, medical benefits and any other equal legal status, America will continue to live in a discriminate state of mind.
I see no problem with homosexual couples having the same access to medical benefits and legal rights that married couples have. But marriage is an entirely different matter, because it is DEFINED to be the union of a man and a woman (usually sealed by an oath before God).

If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?

(A subsequent difficulty then, is this: if fifteen people decide to become mutually "married," do they have the same legal rights to medical insurance at the SAME PRICE? Single adults typically pay FAR less than married couples; shouldn't a married COUPLE still pay less than a large "married" group?)

At any rate, the main difficulty is this: marriage is a contract recognized by both the church and the state - and it is defined the way it is because of religion (Judeo-Christian values, specifically).

One possible solution is this: the state could recognize any union between/among consenting adults as a legally binding union (making marriage be a strictly defined subset of those unions). But the church would recognize as marriages ONLY those unions it feels bound to recognize. In other words, if the Catholics and Southern Baptists do not currently recognize homosexual marriages, they would not be legally required to do so at a later date.

It reduces then to this: a homosexual couple would be "married" in the eyes of the law, but I believe they would not be married in the eyes of God.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 04:59 PM   #44
New Yorker
 
Achtung_Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Beneath the noise, below the din
Posts: 2,859
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Hey, that's uncool. Achtung never said he looks at porn. He wasn't the one who brought up porn. He was simply trying to explain some questions about it that were brought up.
You were out of line.

jaysus i never intended it to be speaking at Bubba... I'm sorry if it came across that way... I meant it in a collective sense, "you" in the plural, general way.

You really need to watch how you word things in this forum!

(not YOU, specifically... collectively...)



[This message has been edited by Achtung_Bebe (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________
Achtung_Bebe is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 05:33 PM   #45
Acrobat
 
S|aney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oprah's kitchen
Posts: 341
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

...If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?
I won't even dignify that with a reply. That's just plain ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

It reduces then to this: a homosexual couple would be "married" in the eyes of the law, but I believe they would not be married in the eyes of God.
It's interesting how you can speak on behalf of God. I would challenge you to read the original Hebrew and Greek texts and point out where homosexuality is wrong. I know, I know... We were all brought and socially conditioned into thinking that it is wrong, but we need to investigate this issue in it's entirety. Why is it wrong? I mean seriously. Why would God condemn it?

Just because people tend to be "disgusted" with it or "uncomfortable" with it, doesn't make it a sin. I think homophobia is a result of heterosexual men being extremely insecure with their masculinity and sexuality. In fact, they are so insecure with their own sexuality that they like to state that it's wrong, then turn around and claim that "God made me say it" in so many words.

It is simply unjust to blame God for mans' own bigotry.


--Achtung Bubba, don't take this reply personal. I always respect your point of view. I just think that most people believe homosexuality is a sin simply because they have been socially conditioned to believe so. It is unfair to exclude gays and lesbians from their God-given rights. Their walk with God is their business, not yours.



[This message has been edited by S|aney (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________

__________________
S|aney is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com