Stigma

[Mark Vieth]

No doubt this has been discussed before, but I feel that it is necessary to mention something that I have noticed. It has to do with straight men or women engaging in things that society considers gay. A good example of that is when a couple (man & woman) use a strap on and the guy is the one who is taking it up the rear. Now to me that would be a power trip for the woman as the roles are reversed and in the end it is the guy who is having something done to him. As I stated in my thread on strap on dildo's just very recently, my friend who has reservations about what is gay what is not, is a good example of what I am talking about. The funny thing is the gay and lesbian community go through this kind of discrimination regularly.


As I mentioned above about my friend, I asked him this simple question, "if you were blindfolded and a guy and a girl both were in the room and you got head by both would you know the difference?" To which he replied "yeah I would because of the stubble on the guys chin." Now I find that a farce because as anyone knows when a person is sucking dick, the external part of their face doesn't actually touch anything. It's the mouth and tongue that is doing all the pleasure.

To me what makes a person gay or lesbian comes down to some very simple things and they are: liking the same sex and doing something about those feelings. All this comes down to is one thing.........choice. We as a society should not be condemned for the choices that we make. If a person has feelings towards the same sex and they can't help it so what? What business is it of society to tell this person what is acceptable? What about those who bat for both teams? Is society's stigma so bad that people have forgotten what it means to have tolerance of other's?

There are those who are so repressed that they go and "bash gays" because they think it's not natural. Whatever their reasons, they are not justified as the person who is getting bashed up wouldn't go any where near the person who is beating them up. I have known geeks when I was at school that were called "gay" and beaten up for no reason. Now of course they weren't gay but it's not the point. It's the whole notion of being labelled as such and having people react and prey on that person because they are too weak to stand up to bullies. Once out of high school, the bully is society. The most interesting part about this is, the gay and lesbian community are tolerant of straights and leave them alone, they don't go around 'straight bashing" because society wouldn't condone this kind of behaviour.

I am straight and have known over the years gay and lesbian people, I have no problem with them and have worked with these people as well. Perception is everything, but judging a person on what they are as apposed to their qualities and what they can do is where the problem lies. I have known a gay guy go for a job at a pub, he had experience and was qualified with his cert 1 and 2 of hospitality. He was also doing his cert 3 and 4. He appled for this position against a straight guy who had no experience and no qualifiactions. Take a guess who got the job? The straight guy, why you might ask? (One would think from an employeer's point of view, you would want the most experienced and qualified person to fill the role.) Simple because he is not gay.

[Intoxication]

good notion.. My girlfriends sister is a lesbian.. and her sister was surprised by the fact that i knew.. and didn't treat her any different.. and i asked why would I? its not hurting me is it.. its her life.. and her wanting to be with girls isnt hurting me in any way.. so why would I care?

[Loulabelle]

To be fair, I really think that homophobia is a pretty outdated notion. Sexuality makes no difference whatsoever to me and I personally know far more gay and lesbian people than I do homophobes....actually I don't know any homophobes and if I did, I'd soon 'bash' that out of them!

Funnily enough, I have been 'straight bashed' by a lesbian in a gay club once (not physically, but verbally) which is ironic as I was eyeing her up!

What I'm trying to say is, in the UK at least, we're pretty tolerant of sexuality these days to the point where we've moved beyond political correctness. I'll give you an example:

I was out (out - hahaha get it?) with a couple of gay guys a few weeks back and they were laughing about how they hate when gay men talk about 'their partner' rather than their 'boyfriend' and how any guy who says 'partner' immediately sounds gay even if he isn't. Bearing in mind, I'd never met these two guys before, I felt it was perfectly fine to joke: 'These bloody queers, they're so politically correct', to which, without missing a beat, one of them replied 'Er, do you mind, we prefer the term 'pouf' actually' and we all fell about laughing. A few years ago we most people (including me) wouldn't have dared make a joking comment like that, just in case it was misconstrued, but in the UK these days, most gay people don't expect to be treated badly so they've got more of a sense of humour and less of a chip on their shoulder than a straight person might expect.

Perhaps it's just the UK who feel like this, but when I see shows like 'Will and Grace' I think, 'Nah....this is a global thing'

[ReaperWoman]

I agree in the main with you Lou, but I still find a number of people who feel... uncomfortable around gay men and women, and sometimes the jokes aren't so funny. I've never gotten what exactly the percieved problem is with "the gays", so I've always been very aware when people display prejudice regarding orientation. I'll try and mention a few specific things I remember.

One is the way that if a man or woman is gay, some people see it as a loss, or a weakness on their part. Someone (a straight female) saying that some female celeb being gay is such a loss. Guys implying that some footballer being gay is a weakness. I hear a lot of "Really? He's gay? Well, he must be a giver..." as if to say that "taking it" would be a complete loss of masculinity.

I've also found females to be less accepting of lesbians than they are of gay men. I've one friend who was weird with me for aaaages after I told her I was bi. She only became normal again with me when she basically forgot about it, and since then she still gets awkward when it comes up.

A friend who is gay recently went off to uni but came back because he was so desperately unhappy because the guys he was living with in the dorms. They were just so horrible to him - I must admit, perhaps they just didn't like the cut of his jibb, but from what he told me it was mostly to do with their discomfort about being around a gay man.


And these are examples, not isolated events. I do agree though that there is a lot more light-hearted attitude, and less chance of actual physical beatings due to orientation. However, there is still an underlying prejudice that should be ignored, but not forgotten.


And by that I don't mean remember your prejudices...

[PantyFanatic]

I personally support the gays and hope they all find a lot of partners. That should leave a few more ladies looking for a friend. :)

Now the lesbians are another story. If she is a 'sharing' person :3way: .... I LOVE the lady, :D but I don't donate to the competition.









:rofl:

[Oldfart]

Lou

The "Will and Grace" thing is not a view of total America (or Australia).

In the States I saw places where orientation did not seem to matter, yet others where any form of difference seemed confronting.

Tolerance is a fickle thing.

[Wicked Wanda]

...is alive and well in the USA.
I am trying so very hard to be calm here.
This is difficult to write, so please ignore the poor style and spelling.
I don't do well when my hands are shaking.
How can the "enlightened" people I have come to know at Pixies think such things.

If we (I am including gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered here) are so accepted why is "same sex marriage" such a huge political issue here? Why can someone refuse to rent to me and my female partner? Why are there so few women's bars nearby? (they keep having to fix the damage from the vandalism, it gets expensive)
Read internet postings. It seems the worst critique can be to label something "gay" "That is so gay" i.e bad.
Or to call someone a "fag" or "butch" or "dyke"

Explain to me why groups carry signs that say "God hates Dykes" and "God hates fags"?

Some of you may say maybe because I live in the South it is worse, but Matthew Shepard lived in Laramie, Wyoming. Teena Brandon lived in Nebrasksa. I think it is everywhere.
Imagine you can't hold hands or kiss another woman in public without causing a commotion, stares, maybe verbal or even physical abuse.

And then there's the Hate.
Demonstrations, beatings, and protests that include some of the most disgusting, vile, venom you might imagine.

Murders.
Teena Brandon, Juana Vega, Sakia Gunn, all well known in the lesbian community, all murdered because they were not "normal women".

There is a "church group" the westboro church that has been staging protests at miltary funerals, because they say God punishes American soldiers because America "lets" gays exist.

The next part is a quote from an article about this "church"

"The Westboro church says the First Amendment gives them the right to condemn gays and to interpret combat deaths as simply God's wrath against U.S. homosexuals.

“It is not okay to be gay,” said Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro church. “Those guys over there in Iraq, this nation has angered the lord their god and the wrath of god is poring out on them. God is dealing with this nation, and you can't do one thing to stop it or stop him from blowing those young people to pieces.”

It seems worse for the men. At least we are not AS frequently assaulted by strangers. I hear about "so and so got beat up" time and again.

But we (lesbian, bi women) are not safe.

One source states that sexual orientation, i.e anti lesbian and gay, hate crimes are the THIRD most common hate crime reported in the USA. (Only race and religion bias crimes are more common)
And the crimes increase in number. The Congress tried to pass a federal hate crimes law that included sexual orientation. Bush promised to veto it. It seems all we want is "special status"

All of you who believe there is little or no anti lesbian bias, respond here with a post and let me know how often you have walked in fear of attack because of who you sleep with.

One last statistic.

Almost 1/8 of all sexual orientation hate crimes are anti lesbian/anti female bisexual.

I am going to go sit and drink, and contemplate my "special class"

Linda

[Loulabelle]

(((((((WW)))))))

I'm sorry this has upset you so much...and I'm even sorrier that there are such a***holes in the world who take this view. I can honestly say though, that I know of no such extreme cases in the UK - perhaps we really are more tolerant as a nation.

I don't mean to turn this thread political but I'm sure the US' laws and culture have become more conservative in recent years (i.e. since the country came under the control of an evangelical Christian who seems to have completely missed the point of Christian tolerance but thinks it's fine for school kids to be able to get hold of firearms relatively easily. Seems like a bad combination, to me.)

[ReaperWoman]

Suddenly I feel very lucky to live where I do.

[Eastern]

(((((WW))))))
I am so sorry that you have had this happen. There are some people that are tolerant out there and glad i do consider myself one.

Take care WW

[Wicked Wanda]

Thank you all for these kind words.
There is so much hate out there right now... Funny thing...
I sometimes think that being bi is worse than just declaring myself lesbian and forgetting about men entirely. As a bi woman, I get both the idiot homophobes and my own sisters spewing vitriol at me. Then there are the males who think because I am bi I am always ready for a 3way or whatever.
(Ok, I pretty much am, but do you have to be so crude, moronic and simply RUDE about it?)
But I can't and won't be anything other than who I am.

Addressing the other issue.

Anti lesbian and gay bias is everywhere, sometimes just hard to see.
The following is from a British web site;
"High-profile homophobic bullying initiatives are failing to make a significant impact in preventing homophobic bullying according to the Queer Youth Network (a national organisation by by and for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered young people). It argues the very nature of schools themselves need to be looked at in order to eradicate all forms of bullying. Tackling homophobic bullying alone is creating a distraction from dealing with a much larger problem. In the organisation's national survey of young people from schools who had an anti-homophobic bullying policy 79% believed it had failed to make any difference to the level of homophobic bullying in their school, and 84% believed it was getting worse."
Check the news Loulabelle. While I have little doubt that the UK is much much more tolerant than the USA, there have been "gay" bashing crimes in the UK, (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/law/2005-4408.html) as well as job discrimination. (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/law/2005-4394.html) Also there's www.galop.org.uk for more information.

Just search local news in what ever part of the world you live in, Oz, the UK, Canada, wherever you are, and you will finds little snippets of news about hate crimes, like an article on how a woman was assaulted and raped. Read to the end, and often there is a clue, such as a mention that she was "leaving a well known gay bar" when she was attacked. (Of course the same applies to gay men, but I have a bias.)
The denials of hate crimes infuriate me. Hate crime legislation is described as "thought crime laws" by conservatives.
Since explore the thoughts and motives of a murderer to see if it was
an unplanned crime of rage or a planned, calculated detruction of another's life, how is looking at the motives of a gang of men who beat and rob a woman with short hair any different?
Some argue that the Hate Crime Laws give more value to some than to others. It does the opposite, it prevents the devaluing of another person's life.
One well known religious- right wing group claims all crimes are crimes of hate, so adding a sexual orientation bias is not needed. This is stupid, ignorant "unseeing" philosophy.
If you are vicious mugger, beating and robbing to feed your need for money to buy coke or to buy flash, then that's what you are. A cruel uncaring sociopath. It isn't a crime of hate, but desire, the desire for money, and perhaps a taste for violence.
But if you pick a woman wearing "men's clothes", or with short hair, who is leaving a women's bar with another woman, and you "can't stand those f*****g queer lesbians" so beat and rob her, all the while not really caring if she has money or not, THAT is hate. No different than robbing and beating a woman wih 3 kids leaving a synagogue in an SUV because "all Jews are worthless anyhow".

Mark, your friend's problem seems to be his feeling that if he took part in a a sexual act more often part of the "gay" lifestyle he would be considered gay, or "less than human"

Sighs and leaves the soapbox for a while

Linda (WW)

[Mark Vieth]

Well WW what you said wasn't exactly the message I was wanting to start with this thread, but the cat is out of the bag as they say now. I touched on prejudice briefly as a closing argument in regards to the pub job. I am not sure where I went amiss in my opening statements, but I was trying to say that their is a stigma in regards to people thinking that couples who engage in certain sex acts, ie the wife is fucking her husband in the ass with a strap on. My friend who I mentioned would consider this gay. Why because the husband is being anally penetrated by his wife? Or is it the stigma that only gay people do this? As I tried to portray he has some issues with sexuality and what it actually is.

I am sorry if I hit a nerve on this, but it wasn't my intention.

[WildIrish]

One well known religious- right wing group claims all crimes are crimes of hate, so adding a sexual orientation bias is not needed. This is stupid, ignorant "unseeing" philosophy.
If you are vicious mugger, beating and robbing to feed your need for money to buy coke or to buy flash, then that's what you are. A cruel uncaring sociopath. It isn't a crime of hate, but desire, the desire for money, and perhaps a taste for violence.

But if you pick a woman wearing "men's clothes", or with short hair, who is leaving a women's bar with another woman, and you "can't stand those f*****g queer lesbians" so beat and rob her, all the while not really caring if she has money or not, THAT is hate. No different than robbing and beating a woman wih 3 kids leaving a synagogue in an SUV because "all Jews are worthless anyhow".


Shouldn't the act itself warrant the punishment? Regardless of the mindframe or intent?

Part of the problem in this country is that there are too many laws in place trying to cover every single possible scenario that could happen. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Rape is rape. I'm not saying that it's ok for people to target others for any reason at all, just that the reprocussions for their actions should be based upon the crime that they commit, and not be magnified or minimized because of their intent. Should the people that killed Matthew Shepard be sentenced differently than those involved in the Central Park Jogger case had she died? I say "no!". Please don't look at that as uncaring...for it's exactly the opposite. I don't care why you kill someone and what you were thinking when you did it...that you did it pisses me off, and for doing it you lose your right to suck up my precious oxygen. I'm very, very pro-punishment. And I have little tolerance for excuses. I guess that's why it doesn't matter to me what people are thinking when they break the law.

I'm truly sorry for the pain you experience because of cretins.

[FallenAngel5]

Taking nothing away from where this discussion has gone, I wanted to address what seems to be Mark's original question.

I think that many men have a need to assert their masculinity at all times - note "many", not "all". That being said, getting any kind of pleasure from, or even submitting to, anal play is seen as gay. This is how gay men have sex, so straight men shouldn't do it, because they'll feel less like a man. I think that this taps into the latent homophobia that many men feel. Why they feel this way I do not know, but many men are afraid of being seen as gay, and for this reason, there is the stigma of having anal contact, and, horror of horrors, enjoying it. :2cents:

[WildIrish]

A wise person that I respect, admire and adore once said "A label is only a label if you let it stick".


Personally, if her finger finds its way into my arse while her mouth is around my penis...I don't care what it's called, it's good! If she wanted to try strap-on sex...I would engage in it with her. God knows she's indulged crazier ideas than that at my whim. lol

[Loulabelle]

Well WW what you said wasn't exactly the message I was wanting to start with this thread, but the cat is out of the bag as they say now. I touched on prejudice briefly as a closing argument in regards to the pub job. I am not sure where I went amiss in my opening statements, but I was trying to say that their is a stigma in regards to people thinking that couples who engage in certain sex acts, ie the wife is fucking her husband in the ass with a strap on. My friend who I mentioned would consider this gay. Why because the husband is being anally penetrated by his wife? Or is it the stigma that only gay people do this? As I tried to portray he has some issues with sexuality and what it actually is.

I am sorry if I hit a nerve on this, but it wasn't my intention.


I think it's a power thing. Some men regard sexual submissiveness to be somehow linked with homosexuality. They see it as 'womanly' behaviour, and we all know that if men do anything even vaguely 'womanly' that they're OBVIOUSLY gay. ;)

That's why straight men:

Don't wrap presents nicely

Don't take more than 15 minutes to get showered and dressed for a night out

Don't remember anniversaries or do romantic stuff for their wives

Don't worry about whether their shoes match their belt

etc etc


Of course I'm joking, but there are men out there who think like that. It's odd that men's sexuality is such a fragile thing....I mean women don't enjoy a soccer match and then get paranoid they're a lesbian.

[cherrypie7788]

Hate me for saying it, but the only stigma is in your head. And that goes for everyone.

[Wicked Wanda]

Shouldn't the act itself warrant the punishment? Regardless of the mindframe or intent?

...there are too many laws in place trying to cover every single possible scenario ... Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Rape is rape. I'm not saying that it's ok for people to target others for any reason... reprocussions for their actions should be based upon the crime that they commit, and not be magnified or minimized because of their intent. Should the people that killed Matthew Shepard be sentenced differently than those involved in the Central Park Jogger case had she died? I say "no!"... I don't care why you kill someone and what you were thinking when you did it... I have little tolerance for excuses. I guess that's why it doesn't matter to me what people are thinking when they break the law.

WW slips into "teaching attitude"

Of course we care about intent.
I don't like the idea of too many laws any more than the next person. Especially laws that concern what I do in my private life.
But when we look at a crime we have to look at intent. Sometimes intent defines the crime. In my post I used the example of killing as an unplanned act of passion vs. a planned calculated attack. The law cares about the differences.
Look at a milder act and the effect of intent on deciding punshment.
Setting fire to a pile of trash in front of a house just to make a commotion and wake up the neighborhood is NOT the same thing as a bunch of white men (no, I Do NOT blame all the world's problems on white men!) burning a cross in front of the home of a Black, Jewish or Catholic family.
Do you think that the guilty in both of these cases should be treated and punished equally? One group, a bunch of bored kids acting stupid, burning some trash, no damage done except to people's nerves. The second group is all about hate, setting out to terrorize a family.
The intent is the difference, what makes it a hate crime and justifies a greater punishment.
Of course there are crimes when the intent is not the point, where the crime is so awful the motive doesn't matter.

Some last thoughts.

The Central Park Jogger was attacked by a serial rapist, (who was identified by his DNA years after the attack. It didn't get a lot of publicity.) She was alone, and didn't appear to be a threat. I easily identify with that.
Matthew Shepard was picked because he was gay, (they planned to rob a "gay guy") small, and non threatening, something else I identify with.

It's hard to be distant and objective about this.

Mark, your friend worries too much, and seems insecure. Just tell him to be happy, do what feels good, take care of his partner and make them happy.

I really do love my Pixies friends.
(And that goes for everyone.)

Linda (WW)

[Loulabelle]

I agree 100% WW.

[Lilith]

I think it's a power thing. Some men regard sexual submissiveness to be somehow linked with homosexuality. They see it as 'womanly' behaviour, and we all know that if men do anything even vaguely 'womanly' that they're OBVIOUSLY gay. ;)

That's why straight men:

Don't wrap presents nicely

Don't take more than 15 minutes to get showered and dressed for a night out

Don't remember anniversaries or do romantic stuff for their wives

Don't worry about whether their shoes match their belt

etc etc


Of course I'm joking, but there are men out there who think like that. It's odd that men's sexuality is such a fragile thing....I mean women don't enjoy a soccer match and then get paranoid they're a lesbian.

I'm married to a gay guy :o :D

*runs to check again :D

[Lilith]

WW slips into "teaching attitude"

The intent is the difference, what makes it a hate crime and justifies a greater punishment.
Of course there are crimes when the intent is not the point, where the crime is so awful the motive doesn't matter.

Some last thoughts.

The Central Park Jogger was attacked by a serial rapist, (who was identified by his DNA years after the attack. It didn't get a lot of publicity.) She was alone, and didn't appear to be a threat. I easily identify with that.
Matthew Shepard was picked because he was gay, (they planned to rob a "gay guy") small, and non threatening, something else I identify with.


The Central Park Jogger assailant selected his victim because she was a woman. Matthew Shepard's because he was gay. If selection criteria equals hate crime then I fail to see a difference.

[Mark Vieth]

It's funny how a thread that is posted from someone can quickly turn into a debate on something else entirely. Thank you to those who bothered tried to keep it on track.

[wyndhy]

i don't think it's entirely different, just branches off a central idea. i think you should thank everyone who's shared their thoughts.


and tell your friend that gay people like to kiss and cuddle and pet each other, too so if he wants to avoid everything that gay people might do, he should avoid those as well.

[WildIrish]

Just because we don't agree on something doesn't mean I need to be educated.

I'm telling you that I don't give a rat's ass what's going through the mind of someone who commits murder, rape, assault, or to use your analogy...sets fire to a garbage can or a cross. Does a spontaneous crime of passion result in the victim being any less dead than a planned and calculated attack? Does the family left behind feel any more comfort? If the laws we already have were enforced correctly, we wouldn't need new ones designed specifically around personal crimes. Does anyone think that if hate crimes legislation was in existance in 1880 that the lynching of African-Americans wouldn't have taken place? The problem wasn't what the crime was called...it was that the laws on the books weren't being enforced. And in my opinion, that's what the problem is today. People feel free to run amok doing whatever they damn well please with little or no fear of reprocussions and absolutely no respect for others on this planet. We are living in a world where nobody gives a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, and the sense of entitlement & privilege overrule the importance of recognizing that we are a society. And when they break the law...it takes two years to go to trial! For crying out loud, it took 18 years for Connecticut to execute a serial killer that admitted to killing 4 young women! 18 years! And that he preyed upon young white girls versus college aged homosexuals or senior citizen rabbis is irrellevant.

I'm way off topic now, but the jist of my mindframe is that it is my opinion that existing laws need to be enforced, not rewritten.

[Wicked Wanda]

The Central Park Jogger assailant selected his victim because she was a woman. Matthew Shepard's because he was gay. If selection criteria equals hate crime then I fail to see a difference.

Sorry hon. That was bad writing on my part.
What I was trying to do was restate my point, from the end of the previous paragraph, that some crimes are so terrible that motive, or "selection criteria" is not important. I was also trying to show (badly) that just because I can identify with a victim, I am not trying to make the crime more than it is.

I slipped into "teaching attitude" because I am a recent victim of higher education. When I am presenting a point or making an argument in a more formal manner, a certain way of speaking and writing takes over, one I call "teaching attitude." When I am in an actual face to face conversation, people who don't know me well sometimes are a bit shocked at the difference.

Wild Irish.

I wasn't trying to "educate you".
I thought maybe if I introduced a new, different way of looking at the issue, you might understand my point of view.

I understand yours, I think. It is almost bibical, the "eye for an eye" belief.

I was taught the point of having a trial was not just about guilt or innocence, but discovering mitigating factors that might affect punishment.

Take a person who kills another person without intent, say during a fistfight, where a person with a heart condition becomes overstressed and dies. Compare to someone who kills another for gain, killing a spouse for the insurance money for example. In each case someone died as a result of an act by another.
If you feel they should be treated the same, that is most certainly your prerogative. I was just pointing out that the law has looked at it differently for a very, very long time. Intent as a basis for deciding the degree of a crime or the punishment isn't new, and certainly not just for hate crimes.

My last thought, as I am not going to post about this anymore.

The laws will change. I just don't know wich way. In the 19th century being lesbian or gay was punishable by imprisonment, or even death, as it still is in several countries. African Americans were "3/5" of a person. It wasn't illegal to kill your slave.

Things change

WW

Thngs change.

[Intoxication]

WW...

I havent read much.. and but I have read some of the things youhave said.. and as unfortunate as it is.. ther will always be those who will discriminate. no matterhow civilised the world get.. you will never get rid of homophobes, you will never get rid of KKK.. it is simply a fact of life that there is always going to be someone who disagree's.. and it really is unfortunate.. here in australia we really dont care.. if someone is gay.. so be it.. but america.. (no offence to those who live there) really is a messed up country.. dont get me wrong there are loads of decent people who live there.. but with the gang wars and all the crap that goes on there.. it just make me feel happy that i live in a carefree australia.. all i can say isgood luck to america.. it will soon implode on itself and I hope allte good people survive..