The use of the word gayFollow

No, I just question the dominant paradigm. When you are part of a marginalized group--or even not, it's healthy skepticism to consider the validity of pervasive values.

At some point, after years of wanting to fit it, you wonder eventually if you really do want to conform and whether it is even very healthy to do so.

Edited, Dec 10th 2008 3:57pm by Annabella

Anything other than the majority *is* by definition deviant. That doesn't mean it's "bad" or "wrong"...you know this.

Think of it as the Kinsey scale with near infinite possibilities across the scale. Most identify with one end or the other between hetero and homosexual, however, is it really necessary to have a separate label for every point in between? ***** has only become to have a negative connotation because people choose to use it that way, but all it means is deviating from the conventional, which is what every point other than heterosexual (some argue every point between heterosexual and homosexual, but I think we're still living in a world where hetero is conventional) would be along the scale. It's the same idea as moving the organizational names away from the acronyms...it's inclusive, even to the point that it allows for sexualities and identities that are unknown or unnamed.

Nexa

Edited, Dec 10th 2008 4:20pm by Nexa

I don't even like the labels heterosexual and homosexual. They are just abbreviations for the various sets of qualities that individuals find nice. Abstraction is an unfortunate practice for anything other than practical matters like avoiding immolating ourselves and such.

A much more accurate account of sexuality would just be that list of preferences, but unfortunately doing so is not feasible.

Yeah, but I think that we should try anyway. Having that as your goal can produce appraisals of arguments which are much less emotional and less biased than one who is content with the typical um.. lexicon.

You can't escape problems of language by just talking more, but you probably do better than not talking at all.

Edited, Dec 10th 2008 5:05pm by Pensive

Ain't language a ***** thing

My main observation is that I don't have any key characteristic that defines me, as I live in a society in which I'm pretty much 'normal' (apart from the height thing). Were I a person of coloUr, homosexual or physically disabled, there's a chance that I might think of myself as Black, Gay or An Spazz.

Much as emoticons emerged to help clarify your intent (ironic, angry, bored etc.), spoken and written language have to be treated with care.

Back to the height thing, it's nothing like as conentious as homosexuality, but bear with me, hmmkay?

I get called 'lanky', but more often, I'm treated to the comic genius of "Did you fall asleep in a glasshouse", "Is there snow on top" or "If he says it's Tuesday, it's Tuesday".

I rarely take offence unless I'm in the mood to **** someone or put them down in front of their friends ("Did you say that because you have no sense of humoUr or because you're a stunted little cUnt?").

What is guaranteed to **** me off is the 'bet' conversation in a pub. "Hey my mate reckons you're 6'5" but I reckon you're 6'8". Which one of us is closest?"

Consider a subtlely different scenario if I were shorter than average. "Wow you're really short aren't you! My mate reckons you're 5'0" but I think you're closer to 4'10".
That would pretty much guarantee you a head-butt in the love-spuds, right?

So my point is that we (most of us) are subject to arbitrary definitions of what is normal, what is worse than normal, and what is better. For some messed up reason, being tall is generally seen in a positive light (as is being white, straight, able-bodied) and being short is a negative.

Any of us have the right to challenge or get pissy at language that we perceive to devalue us. That's why black people can comfortably use the word 'black' in a positive way, yet take offense if the word is used by white people in a way that may be derogatory (as has usually been the case historically).

Finally, a good indicator of inappropriate use is relevance. When people refer to someone's coloUr, sexuality etc when it has no bearing whatever on the narrative, it's a safe bet that a smack in the chops will feel rewarding.

This Thread > Picture

Can't, New Hampshire Punk Rock all ready claimed it.

And you ****** can't take it back.

See You Later Fuckface

I wasn't looking for trouble,
But it came looking for me.
I may not have any muscles,
But I can move like Bruce Lee.

So when a bunch of these pussies started
Beating up on my friends,
I left the stage, intending to land on them.

See ya later, fuckface.
See ya later, fuckface.
See you in the funny pages - fuck you!
See ya later, fuckface.
See ya later, fuckface.
We hate you.

My dive was graceful and swanlike.
It was a sight to behold.
I fell on top of a table,
And broke a couple of bones.

One of the mongoloid's girlfriends kicked me
Right in the family jewels.
I socked her one in the eye, and said,
"Fuck you!

See ya later, fuckface.
See ya later, fuckface.
See you in the funny pages - fuck you!
See ya later, fuckface.
See ya later, fuckface.
We hate you.

Why anyone would give a rat's *** about the sexuality of someone they're never going to have sex with is beyond me, but meh, I ain't no Einstein. I do wonder though if part of the issue isn't merely sexuality but Human nature.

The majority almost always ( or so it seems) subjugate the minority. Doesn't matter if it's race, sex, religion, whatever. The benign labels assigned to the minority will eventually take on negative connotations within the majority.

Rainbow was proposed as a label for GBLT. If they were the majority would they label heterosexuals as prismatically challenged? Ok, that's fairly stupid, but my point is any minority will face the same hurdles. And that's kinda sad really.

Unfortunately, that scale doesn't measure certain qualities that for some can have much more to do with attraction. But then, I guess that's not its goal.

Never hurts to show up and encourage them anyway.

...offering aid and succor, so to speak.


Edited, Dec 11th 2008 1:23pm by Samira

Yeah, it'd probably suck.

HA!

Do homosexuals have their own web browser like African-Americans do? http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/12/mozillas-blackbird-web-browser.html

They better join the club if they want some respect.


Me either. I think it's in the eye of the beholder.. anyone who knows me knows how I REALLY feel about such things.. anyone who does not know me is irrelevant.


Edited, Dec 12th 2008 2:51pm by Kelvyquayo