The Gay Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irvine, maybe you or someone can help me out about this straight-acting thing. Is there status or premium attached to gay men who are stereotypically masculine enough to "pass" if they wanted, even if they are out? And is there lower status or competition for men who couldn't pass if they tried?



It would be impossible to make such generalizations.

I think someone describing himself as "straight-acting" says more about that person than any sort of hierarchy.

"Gay culture" is a complex thing, and increasingly diverse, and may be ending as we speak.
 
If I could boycott Kansas for their blatant Jim Crow bullshit, I would. But what the fuck is in Kansas anyway?
 
what's interesting is that what they are proposing is *exactly* what INDY has said anti-gay discrimination can't compare to: Jim Crow.

History always repeats, regardless of what GAF might want us to believe. This is a damn shame.
 
I was going to make a joke about how shitty the Royals are, but they're in Missouri anyway.
 
It would be impossible to make such generalizations.

Interesting. Of course in the straight world everyone has individual preferences, but it's clear that high status is attached to slim-bodied women with full breasts, and regarding women of color status is attached to women with straight hair, light skin and long, narrow features. And while individual women have their various tastes, status is attached to tall men over short ones and muscular over skinny ones.

"Gay culture" is a complex thing, and increasingly diverse, and may be ending as we speak.

How does that feel? It seems like the subculture has been pretty significant to gay American identity the gay rights movement. It's amazing that real integration seems within reach, but does the thought of assimilation have any mixed feelings attached?
 
Why bother with the actual process of amending the constitution when a solitary judge can nullify it according to his/her agenda?



Why have a Constitution when we can just vote? Oh, wait, we're winning that too.

Do you really think that conservative, GOP appointed judges in super-duper red states like Utah and Oklahoma have some agenda?

What will it take for you to admit that it is unconstitutional to deny gay people access to civil marriage and that your opposition is rooted in nothing more than animus?
 
A federal judge who struck down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage inaccurately attributed a quote from Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” Arenda Wright Allen wrote in her original opinion, issued late Thursday.
Though the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection” under the law, the Constitution does not include the phrase “all men are created equal.” That would be the Declaration of Independence.

Good thing we have these wise, constitutionally savvy judges to overturn the hateful, ignorant votes of unenlightened Virginians.
 
To describe one's self as "straight-acting" when one is gay is internalized homophobia.

How would we feel if a black person describes himself as "white-acting"?

Exactly. I didn't deny what you were saying. You got me wrong.
But I would examplify "internalized homophobia" with other examples rather than this, so it gets easier to understand.
Thus, to claim straight-acting is always coming from a heterossexual-normative social-base.
I'd give the example of gays that can't stand queers, or pride parades, or gays that will never get out of the closet and still go with mothers to the church on sunday mornings, or gay deputees that vote against them selves, etc etc, for that to be easier to understand.
 
I'd give the example of gays that can't stand queers, or pride parades, or gays that will never get out of the closet and still go with mothers to the church on sunday mornings, or gay deputees that vote against them selves, etc etc, for that to be easier to understand.


the problem is the restrictive idea of what being gay is -- something that comes from being defined by the majority, but also the idea of a "mainstream" gay culture, something that happens to all minority groups -- and how many people feel isolated from that, and therefore feel as if they're "straight-acting." they're not, they're gay acting since they presumably are emotionally and physically attracted to men. so the work that needs to be done by the gay community is to expand understandings of gayness and emphasize inclusion.
 
Diemen, could you copy the conversation over to there somehow, or would splitting this thread be too confusing?
 
speaking of slippery slopes, look out ladies!

"If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere -- and not a few husbands -- to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship. Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men's sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and in the American imagination." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, speaking at Franciscan University.

yeah, that's the same researcher who did that junk study about gay parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom