Aaron Swartz "Why I'm Not Gay"

[Rolyo85]

Ok, some points:

1. As far as "in the past", just because ancient, medieval or even Victorian era cultures didn't have a specified concept of homosexuality, doesn't mean homosexuality didn't exist. Frankly, most of those didn't have a specified concept of diseases, weather patterns or gravity, but that doesn't mean that those didn't exist until someone explained and labeled them. People in those ages were just as bisexual, gay or heterosexual, whether they thought in those terms or not (which yes, they didn't).

2. As usual, people mistake a label with its most stereotypical, cliched and narrow definition. Being called "gay" means nothing more than the very broad concept of "you prefer your own gender emotionally and sexually". It's not even exclusive. In fact, the three categories of straight, gay and bisexual are so broad, that they can fit all the laughable sub-categories tweens love to invent while in undergrad.

3. I find the whole "men having sex with men" school of thought vile and repulsive. Because it implies that sexuality is just about sex, and so sexual identity is pointless. Neither is true. I CAN NOT be romantically attracted to a woman any more than I can be physically attracted to her. A gay/homosexual person could not form a lasting romantic bond with the opposite gender. Which informs practically everything about our lives. To make it just about sex is en par with the Christianist hate groups' arguments about us.

 

[Ninja108]

Not so sure about labels but here's my train of though...if you can have sex with a guy,you are attracted to them,like it or not.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

as say 1st world is not a possubll deal wit wot do cause default is alls barkin loons stuckin so much crap

clinton of a female mrs say or any of a male President Mr say
hole planet jump oh good y change foot steps

begin of 21 st century wot a spit of nothin in time start off full a crap
noone deal wit queen victoria knickurs or a did casear wear condom?
or Zulu invent democracy or not ans why snot look likes a wot lot folk eat from russia ta portugal fa eons
until great emperors kings sultans warrior chiefs etc so on etc discova it may make um liv fa 10000 yrs
ans now snot cost 1000 rupee a gram

anyway

wot (1st world)<limite club> not deal wit may a good start as avoid deal wit fa eons at end a day is no need
if
but if so far far far fa rfa rf ar far fafafafafafafa away
sumdude make star wars wit teddy bears

anyway

fairys is alls a hope 1st world get it< in nice way
- waits -

thankyou

 

[Adrusek81]

There's a fundamental difference between "what people are" and how they choose to identify which will always come down to the individual, and telling someone "here's your label, deal with it." Do you think the Irish chose to be considered "nonwhite" in the 19th century?

As I've said before, labels are general signifiers that are open ended. Which means that they can be used for a myriad of purposes - including discriminatory ones. Of course there will always be behaviours that attempt against the integrity of others (not to mention, against logic itself). However, using incidents in which deliberate actions were taken to isolate a group and justify their marginalization, does not lend validity to the notion that labels do not have a purpose that transcends personal choices. Adjectives define things in a purely epistemological manner, and their use is flexible enough to allow certain individuals to misuse them. That is an issue of power and discrimination, which has to be addressed and fought against, because there is a malicious intent behind the adjudication of a label. However, saying that you reject labels just because you are not happy with what you are and how you want to be perceived by others, is an entirely different matter altogether.

Allow me to give an example: I am just a human being, but I could be unhappy with that label and choose to self-identify as the Emperor of the Universe and creator of a new race - and then claim that anyone who doesn't accept said label is a bigot who is trying to impose the label "human" on me. That would be just an exercise of delusion rooted in my own personal problems and distorted perceptions, not an attempt to fight against behaviours that impinge on my rights. However, if someone legally uses the label "sodomite" to justify penalizing my emotional responses to other men and my sexual conduct, I could be justified in challenging the intention behind their actions and their use of the adjective, but not the label itself.

Being called gay or bisexual is not something harmful - it is what some of us are. The fact that we might not like what some people imply when they call us that is an entirely different matter altogether, and that is what should be addressed. Calling ourselves "people" or "sexual" won't change the general meaning of words that reflect our emotional and sexual preferences.

My general theory is that you can call yourself whatever you want, but you can't dictate what OTHERS call you. I can insist that I do NOT own a car - I own a four-wheel motorcycle with enclosed seating compartment. I can also insist that others call it a four-wheel motorcycle with enclosed seating compartment, and deride those who talk about my "car" as Philistines of the first order that insist on labelling everything. But most people would probably think I had a couple screws loose.

Got a thing for the opposite gender? Straight.
Got a thing for the same gender? Gay.
Got a thing for both genders? Bisexual.

Does these words tell the whole story? Not even close. But that doesn't mean they don't come in handy.

Lex

Excellent point.

 

[xbuzzerx]

As I've said before, labels are general signifiers that are open ended. Which means that they can be used for a myriad of purposes - including discriminatory ones. Of course there will always be behaviours that attempt against the integrity of others (not to mention, against logic itself). However, using incidents in which deliberate actions were taken to isolate a group and justify their marginalization does not lend validity to the notion that labels do not have a purpose that transcends personal choices.

And if someone personally feels a particular label imparts a greater meaning to which they do not personally ascribe, and therefore they choose not to use the label, what is the problem with that?

That's my fundamental question here regarding the OP.

In any other discussion in this forum people will leap to say defining someone else's sexuality for them is wrong. In this case it's everyone getting mad at the OP for choosing not to use a label for a sexual preference. I'm asking why this is a problem.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

so ya gonna program 10000 million apes on planet wit all da shit of 1st world ways a thinkin?
* ooh now is understand ya not a average penguiin *
^ yea cause sold out a black ink ^
* is a green polka dot penguin *
" cake? *
^ ooh how a nice real cream? ^
"ooh yes is a cream of a cow cream"
^ ooh a cow cream how nice ^
" yum "
^ ya say bum? ^
" no is use Y ans UM wot is enjoy cakey creamys "
^ ooh YUM ^
" now ta end eatin cake "
^ how nice end ^
" yes wot happy end "

---

ya missing sumthang

thakyou

 

[Rolyo85]

And if someone personally feels a particular label imparts a greater meaning to which they do not personally ascribe, and therefore they choose not to use the label, what is the problem with that?

That's my fundamental question here regarding the OP.

In any other discussion in this forum people will leap to say defining someone else's sexuality for them is wrong. In this case it's everyone getting mad at the OP for choosing not to use a label for a sexual preference. I'm asking why this is a problem.

Because the gay rights movement could have been fifty years ahead in its development if we had fewer people that were shitting their pants in horror at the very notion of being identified as gay. No other minority can "pass" the way we do, and so no other minority has been so filled with self-loathing and denial. Which makes it a sensitive subject. More so, because it's a dude whose opinion matters a degree more than mine or yours.

Also, I think people are jumping against the opinion itself, not the guy. But that might just be my naive interpretation. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who tries to peddle the "men having sex with men" crap.

 

[sixthson]

"I don't like labels" = "I'm ashamed I'm not straight".

 

[G-Lexington]

And if someone personally feels a particular label imparts a greater meaning to which they do not personally ascribe, and therefore they choose not to use the label, what is the problem with that?

You're relatively new here, so you probably haven't heard this little bit of mine before. I used to type it a lot.

I've lived in Colorado nearly my whole life. That pretty much makes me a Coloradoan. That's dictionary definition. There may be some "baggage" attached to that label - one JUBber said he felt bad for me because the Broncos lost on Saturday, for instance, despite the fact that I really don't care about the team at all. And I haven't gone skiing since the mid-80s. But none of these have to do with the definition of "Coloradoan". It's simply some of the excess stuff that people can think hold true of Coloradoans.

But if somebody asked me if I were a Coloradoan, and I responded "No - I'm an American from the Rocky Mountain region"...or if I responded "Why do you insist on labeling everybody? Why can't I just be me?"...nobody would consider that refreshing and open-minded. Nobody would consider me a "free-thinker who refuses to live by the confines of labels". They'd just wonder what the hell my problem was. Because I AM a Coloradoan. Not being a Bronco fan and not being a skier doesn't change that. Sure, I could insist on not being called that, or insist on a different "label" for me. But doing so seems to accomplish one of two things - it deliberately muddies the waters, and it suggests some sort of issue I have with that label. It doesn't make the label incorrect.

Lex

 

[xbuzzerx]

Because the gay rights movement could have been fifty years ahead in its development if we had fewer people that were shitting their pants in horror at the very notion of being identified as gay. No other minority can "pass" the way we do, and so no other minority has been so filled with self-loathing and denial. Which makes it a sensitive subject. More so, because it's a dude whose opinion matters a degree more than mine or yours.

Also, I think people are jumping against the opinion itself, not the guy. But that might just be my naive interpretation. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who tries to peddle the "men having sex with men" crap.

At core, what I get out of the OP is that there's sexual orientation, and then there is a created social identity.

In our society, the term for both is gay.

You might fit one or the other or both connotations of the label.

Attacking someone as being an "enemy of the movement" for having an individual preference to eschew the label because it covers a lot of things seems reactionary to me.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Because the gay rights movement could have been fifty years ahead in its development if we had fewer people that were shitting their pants in horror at the very notion of being identified as gay. No other minority can "pass" the way we do, and so no other minority has been so filled with self-loathing and denial. Which makes it a sensitive subject. More so, because it's a dude whose opinion matters a degree more than mine or yours.

Also, I think people are jumping against the opinion itself, not the guy. But that might just be my naive interpretation. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who tries to peddle the "men having sex with men" crap.

is all fa human race all include move _ forward fasta then speedin snail

but

>WE< is 1st world no idea wot dat is but use a like easy asn watch etnertains of a sweat drip of dude waitn fa bullet wot say okay ya may pass or not ans news media smile go brush teeth ans present da weather wit pretty flowas etc

dizzy now

anyway

will wait in hope
* dildo chair *
ooh suck suck

thankyou

 

[Rolyo85]

At core, what I get out of the OP is that there's sexual orientation, and then there is a created social identity.

In our society, the term for both is gay.

You might fit one or the other or both connotations of the label.

Attacking someone as being an "enemy of the movement" for having an individual preference to eschew the label because it covers a lot of things seems reactionary to me.

It's still a fight. Reactionaries win fights But I am not one, or at least I don't think I am.

I disagree with the distinction between sexual orientation and social identity. As was already pointed out numerous times, society WILL put you in that category unless you hide it - which goes into closeted living a lie territory - so the distinction becomes meaningless. You ARE gay, both in terms of who you are attracted to, and in terms of how society sees you. You are branded for life, just as any other group of people - blacks, women, nerds, jocks, Yankees fans, etc. So you can resort to empty posturing of giving the finger to societal labels, OR you can try to change their perception... or at least keep it quiet if you don't care enough to.

Because in the end, nobody needs to fight, but those who fight, fight for those who don't as well. We all benefit from it, whether we have done something or not. So we can at least have the good grace to not do anything AGAINST it...

 

[Adrusek81]

And if someone personally feels a particular label imparts a greater meaning to which they do not personally ascribe, and therefore they choose not to use the label, what is the problem with that?

That's my fundamental question here regarding the OP.

In any other discussion in this forum people will leap to say defining someone else's sexuality for them is wrong. In this case it's everyone getting mad at the OP for choosing not to use a label for a sexual preference. I'm asking why this is a problem.

It is a problem because, as the Spanish saying goes, "the paths of the Lord are inscrutable and the paths of self-deceit, unpredictable". Language has a coherence that applies to all. If people experience desire for the same gender or both genders, they are either gay or bisexual - the meaning is there, great or small, and it applies to them whether they like it or not. The problem lies in the fact that many of the people who "refuse to be labelled", often do so because they reject an identity with which they are not personally happy, not because the shoe doesn't fit - and they don't realize that projecting their negative perceptions on others will not solve their inner conflict.

It's true, we are free to define ourselves however we want - even when our choices go against general logic. For example, in Latin America there are people of Amerindian and African ancestry who are very dark-skinned and yet, they choose to define as white, and find a million excuses to justify this choice. They are Amerindian and black people, and the fact that they might call themselves Scandinavian or Ruthenian is irrelevant. They are what they are independently of how society views them, and how they view themselves. Why shouldn't the same rules apply to sexuality? just because it isn't visible? Sexuality is what it is, and saying "no one can define it for me" is absurd. It just is.

Nonetheless, when we use our personal choice as a means to invalidate an entire community and highlight how we are, somehow, more enlightened or too unique to fit in with those who are happy with belonging to a group and the label that defines it, we have a problem - a problem of personal identity clashing against a perfectly acceptable situation. In short, thinking that you are too important to be labelled gay or bisexual because you don't like the stereotypes traditionally linked to these adjectives, is an infantile response at best. Therapy is meant to help you to deal with that, not attempting to change semantics.

Because the gay rights movement could have been fifty years ahead in its development if we had fewer people that were shitting their pants in horror at the very notion of being identified as gay. No other minority can "pass" the way we do, and so no other minority has been so filled with self-loathing and denial. Which makes it a sensitive subject. More so, because it's a dude whose opinion matters a degree more than mine or yours.

Also, I think people are jumping against the opinion itself, not the guy. But that might just be my naive interpretation. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who tries to peddle the "men having sex with men" crap.

Again, superbly stated and analyzed.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I'm not keen on label-fixating but I'm still intrigued, xxbuzzxx by your label about the "nonwhite Irish" back in post 42 and 43.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/394937-Aaron-Swartz-quot-Why-I-m-Not-Gay-quot

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nonetheless, when we use our personal choice as a means to invalidate an entire community and highlight how we are, somehow, more enlightened or too unique to fit in with those who are happy with belonging to a group and the label that defines it, we have a problem - a problem of personal identity clashing against a perfectly acceptable situation. In short, thinking that you are too important to be labelled gay or bisexual because you don't like the stereotypes traditionally linked to these adjectives, is an infantile response at best. Therapy is meant to help you to deal with that, not attempting to change semantics.

What you say is true in the case of someone using their preference to embrace or avoid labels is doing it for the reasons you say. What I disagree with you about is that anyone avoiding a label would be doing it for this purpose. I'm saying much the same thing in the other thread.

If someone chooses to adopt the viewpoint that anyone not as comfortable using the same lables the same way for the same reasons as 'me' must necessarily be doing it to belittle or attack me and my group is a choice on the part of the person embracing that viewpoint-- it does not necessarily tell us anything about the reasoning of the person avoiding the label.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

analyzed

dat word fit 1stworld

* passed *
^ ooh goody ^

ha

 

[Telstra]

Anyway if i can't label you are hot or ugly,
everyone is better off mute then ...

 

[xbuzzerx]

Anyway if i can't label you are hot or ugly,
everyone is better off mute then ...

The difference with that is that everyone here would agree that hot or ugly is subjective and that each person is entitled to their own decision about the label when looking at an individual.

 

[Rolyo85]

What you say is true in the case of someone using their preference to embrace or avoid labels is doing it for the reasons you say. What I disagree with you about is that anyone avoiding a label would be doing it for this purpose. I'm saying much the same thing in the other thread.

If someone chooses to adopt the viewpoint that anyone not as comfortable using the same lables the same way for the same reasons as 'me' must necessarily be doing it to belittle or attack me and my group is a choice on the part of the person embracing that viewpoint-- it does not necessarily tell us anything about the reasoning of the person avoiding the label.

Nobody has said that here. But the text quoted in the OP DOES that.

 

[hylas]

woah i disagree with that quote. basically, everything has been said already, but i took the time to read the thing, so im just gonna have to rant a little now.

there are as many sexualities and gender-identities as there are people. so labels are always going to be approximations. they are used for practical reasons (to fight for equal rights, or to find partners.)

i never understand people who "rally" against labels. whats their fucking problem? why this need to distance yourself from identities like "gay"? could it have to do with - *gasp* - feelings of shame and self-hatred?

Having sex with other people of your gender isn’t an identity, it’s an act.
yes, and the gay identity isnt based on those acts, its based on attraction. a man can fuck women all his life, if he was thinking about men all that time, hes gay.

Having sex with someone shouldn’t require an identity crisis.
it seems to me that many gay men and straight women can have sex with women without having an identity crisis just fine. many lesbians have sex with men and still identify as lesbian, without having a crisis about it, either. the "identity crisis" he describes here mostly happens to straight identified men, it seems to me, and it has more to do with our cultures homophobic definition of masculinity than with the concept of sexual orientations.

People shouldn’t be forced to categorize themselves as “gay,” “straight,” or “bi.”
honey, they arent.

A man who has mostly dated men should be just as welcome to date women as a woman who’s mostly dated men.
honey, they are.

I hook up with people. I enjoy it. Sometimes they’re men, sometimes they’re women. I don’t see why it needs to be any more complicated than that.
because its not just about enjoying orgasms, you complete and utter tool. its about justice and equality and social responsability, too.

and lastly, is he really saying that being gay is a choice? what a total and complete douche. he may be able to choose who hes attracted to, but i dont need him speaking for me, thank you very much.